<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>I am in favor of Andy's proposal (forking). My current understanding is there are developers interested in working in both directions, and this proposal permits that to happen.<br></div><br></div>If the projects diverge, so be it. If one ceases to be actively maintained, so be it. This is not unusual in OSS or CPAN. End users will always have the choice which to use (or continue using), or whether to switch.<br><br></div>I do not think a "succession plan" is necessary for this proposal, because I trust Peter to be responsible and responsive to the users, the fact that abandoned repos can be reassigned, and that any written succession plan is not necessarily going to actually help in an uncertain future.<br><br></div><div>As I said before, governance and direction do not seem to me entirely independent discussions, and attempts to split them may depress user involvement. Its like voting for a candidate without knowing their platform. As an end-user, I care a lot about direction. My feelings about governance can change as I hear more about what folks are proposing to do.<br></div><div><br></div>thanks,<br></div></div>michael<br><br>p.s. I didn't appreciate the feeling of "rush to judgment" that
this thread began with. I can understand that to some this discussion feels
like its dragging on, but if you want to listen to users, you need to
give plenty of time. (I can't even read this mailing list on a daily basis,
much less cogitate and respond!)<br></div>