[Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

[Matt S Trout]

(bcced again to the modules list)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 08:43:03AM +0000, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> Given that there was no formal vote, I think this is a somewhat hasty
> and unfair conclusion. It's a bit like having an election with only one
> party, having people vote, and then mentioning a second party later
> once the election's finished. I personally was just about to vote in
> favour of the "governance+core team" proposal, when I went through all
> the emails and came to the second conclusion.
> 
> Personally I would like to see a straightforward "A vs B" vote. Only
> then will I consider this a fair decision.

Excellent.

This entire argument exists because riba wanted to plan his succession (a
plan that he has always refused to explain) without even bothering to talk
to the user base.

I, personally, preferred to actually let the userbase decide what happened,
hence the (apparently insufficient) attempt at voting that riba grudgingly
agreed to.

I am entirely in favour of a multi-proposal vote, and will be happy to abide
by the result of the list aggregate vote.

If anybody wishes to make a third proposal, they probably should do so now.

Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full proposal, and
I have time to update my governance proposal, and then we allow Q&A about
both, and then we vote.

As such, I petition the PAUSE administration to leave things alone while the
community sorts things out, given it's clear that everybody except ribasushi
would prefer things to be decided by democracy than fiat.

-- 
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue

http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/   http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/

Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.