[Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

[Leo Lapworth]

On 31 October 2016 at 11:22, Andrew Beverley <andy at andybev.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout <mst at shadowcat.co.uk> wrote:
>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
>> proposal,
>
> TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the
> results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier
> suggestions[2], which several others also seemed to like.
>
> But, in that case, I propose:
>
> - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace, continuing to maintain and
> tighten that code base. The aim would be a rock-solid module with a
> very conservative rate of change and new features.
>
> - A new namespace DBIx::Class2 is created, owned and operated by MST's
> governance+core team proposal. Developers that want to create new
> features do so in this namespace.
>
> I do not understand the technicalities, but from what I have seen
> discussed, people would still be able to use DBIx::Class::* modules in
> both namespaces.
>
> The advantages of this proposal are:
>
> 1. Users get a choice. If they are happy with the current feature set
> and need rock-solid performance and stability, then they can use DBIC.
> If they need new features or want to use a module that has a quicker
> development pace, then they can use DBIC2.
>
> 2. Ribasushi continues to contribute to the code base, both in terms of
> potentially migrating proven-solid features from DBIC2 to DBIC, and in
> terms of keeping his expertise engaged.
>
> Andy
>
> [1] http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/012392.html
> [2] http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/012237.html

If we are having a A vs B vote, someone needs to put together a proposal
that has been fully researched and working out governance processes
for the project(s) as a whole...

- If we are forking, is there ANY pretence of trying to maintain
interoperability
between the 2 namespaces, if there is how does that get governed?

- Can anyone other than Ribasushi have any say in DBIx::Class changes,
as I've just seen David comment, what happens when he does want to
retire again?

- I'm not sure the people previously mentioned would be interested
in working on a fork (DBIx::Class2), they might be, but someone would need
to discuss this with them and then come back to the list with a confirmation
of that.

These are only initial thoughts, there is much more detail that someone
would need to work through....

We shouldn't start voting until there is a FULL researched and formal proposal,
rather than some general ideas about a possible direction.

Maybe someone could formally step forward to co-ordinate putting
together this alternative proposal?

Leo