No subject

"declare project over" (and that seems to be a relatively common POV, as the
responses to a certain recent perl.com article have made quite visible), and
I felt that the community should have some input into so momentous and
potentially irrevocable a decision.

The eventual end result of the debate on the list seemed to indicate that
continuing to move forward - albeit extremely carefully, as befits an
infrastructure level project - was the general consensus, but the sheer
vitriol level of the discussion left me substantially burned out in terms
of the project.

I was *expecting* that one or both of "mst recovers from burnout wrt DBIC" or
"community engages and starts making proposals" would happen within a few
months; neither did, and it's now a little over a year on and I still haven't
been able to muster the time and motivation to get things moving forwards
again. I was, admittedly, hoping to do that shortly, but given I've been in
a mental state of "hoping to do that shortly" for about the past year I don't
think it's reasonable or fair to ask people to rely on it coming true *this*
time, especially given I don't think I can honestly claim that *I'm* convinced
I'm not still deluding myself in that regard.

So at this point, the decision under discussion is basically "retain the
status quo, with the attached risk of de-facto death by good intentions that
never go anywhere" versus "give the project to the only person other than me
with a truly in-depth understanding of the architecture who's also the only
person other than me to have led the project, who's now indicated that he is
once again willing to do so".

I think under the circumstances it's pretty clear which of these options
gives DBIC the better odds and best opportunity for ongoing success.

As such:

+1

 -- mst, out.

-- 
If you truly love something, set it free.