<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Beverley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andy@andybev.com" target="_blank">andy@andybev.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden <<a href="mailto:xdg@xdg.me">xdg@xdg.me</a>> wrote:<br>
> So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant<br>
> Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute.<br>
><br>
> I.e. he could – on arbitrary day N after your proposal is adopted –<br>
> merge his remaining work, transfer permissions to an unknown person<br>
> with an unknown mandate, and retire (aka. the original "project<br>
> freeze" plan).<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, correct, just like lots of other "upstream" module maintainers<br>
could do the same.<br>
<br>
Like I say, I personally trust him not to cause such a train-smash</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please read the section entitled "=== Future Plans" in this message from Peter: <a href="http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/10/msg96174.html">http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/10/msg96174.html</a><br><br></div><div>What I suggested was not a hypothetical "train-smash" intended to scare you or others. It was literally his plan for DBIC as of Oct 1.<br><br></div><div>In making your proposal "B", you are indicating that you support that specific plan if that's what Peter decides is best for DBIC now or at any point in the future.<br><br></div><div>Again, I have no objections if the DBIC community gives informed consent to such a plan. Speaking personally, I can understand the appeal of such certainty around stability.<br><br></div><div>I, too, look forward to Peter's thoughts, as perhaps his thinking on the matter has evolved since a month ago.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,<br></div><div>David<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>