Re: DBIx-Class Digest, Vol 138, Issue 8

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DBIx-Class Digest, Vol 138, Issue 8

scott

I choose proposal A.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 05 December 2016 11:26
To: [hidden email]
Subject: DBIx-Class Digest, Vol 138, Issue 8

Send DBIx-Class mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of DBIx-Class digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ?
      (Leo Lapworth)
   2. Re: ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ?
      (Patrick Meidl)
   3. Re: ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ?
      (Darren Duncan)
   4. Re: ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ?
      (Dagfinn Ilmari Manns?ker )
   5. Re: ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ?
      (David Precious)
   6. Re: ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ?
      (Sam Kington)
   7. Re: ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ?
      (Paul Mooney)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:04:01 +0000
From: Leo Lapworth <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace
        Control ?
To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list"
        <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Proposal A



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:20:25 +0100
From: Patrick Meidl <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace
        Control ?
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Proposal A

--
Patrick Meidl, Mag.
Senior Expert Software Engineering

IST - Institute of Science and Technology Austria Am Campus 1
A-3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria

R I21.EG.115 (Building West, BT01)
T +43 2243 9000 1313
E [hidden email]
W https://icp.ist.ac.at/search/users/pmeidl





------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:27:35 -0800
From: Darren Duncan <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace
        Control ?
To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list"
        <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

I choose Proposal A. -- Darren Duncan

On 2016-12-04 10:15 PM, David Golden wrote:
> * PROPOSAL A: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related
> namespaces shall be managed under the amended DBIC community
> governance structure proposed by Matt Trout.  Decisions about the
> future development of the project, including but not limited to
> stability policy, new development, branching and freezing shall be
> governed by the community under the same terms.  The community will
> choose whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that
> name or a separate name.  Peter will choose whether/how to fork DBIC to a
new namespace for independent development.




------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 11:00:07 +0000
From: [hidden email] (Dagfinn Ilmari Manns?ker )
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace
        Control ?
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I vote for Proposal A

David Golden <[hidden email]> writes:

> Thank you to everyone who has been participating in or just reading
> the various governance discussions since my initial email to the DBIC
> list of Oct 3. [1]
>
> It's time to bring this to a conclusion.
>
> Peter suggests that the question to consider is merely which fork gets
> the "DBIx::Class" namespace indexed on CPAN.  While that may be all he
> cares about, I feel it trivializes the discussions the community has
> been having and the decision the community is being asked to make.
>
> Without restating all the history to date, here are the facts of the
> case that I think are most relevant to consider in understanding the
> proposals at hand:
>
> * Peter's original plan that started the dispute could be summarized
> as "Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X",
> where at that time the plan appeared to be "freeze and park
> permissions with an unknown owner".
>
> * The dispute process clearly indicated that Peter didn't have the
> support of existing maintainers or the community for such a plan
> sufficient to disregard his prior permissions agreement with Matt.
>
> * Matt proposed a mechanism for the community to self-govern the DBIC
> namespace and development, sharing power between maintainers and the
> mailing list. (Revised proposal is linked as [2])
>
> * Peter revealed that his new employment situation allows him to
> continue development. [3]
>
> * Given Peter's track record and renewed availability, some in the
> community wanted to see an alternative proposal where Peter continued
> DBIC and the community took forward "DBIC2"; Andrew Beverl formalized
> a proposal [4].  In response to concerns about the proposal, Peter
> volunteered to clarify the alternative proposal.
>
> * Peter delivered an alternative proposal that could be summarized as
> "Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X",
> where at this time the plan appears to be "kickstart a DBIx::Class
> fork free of community bias". [5]
>
> Unfortunately for the community's deliberations, Peter has
> consistently provided minimal details on his plans, particularly
> regarding succession should he no longer be able to or wish to
> continue development.  After Andrew Beverl's proposal, Peter said he
> would clarify by Nov 1 [6].  This target date then slipped to Nov 5
> [7], was pushed back again on Nov 7 [8], and pushed again to Nov 17 or
> else Thanksgiving [9].  On November 10, in the middle of this sequence
> of delays, I started a private email thread with Peter asking if there
> was anything I could do to help him formalize his proposal, but the
> thread stalled on the Nov 14.  On November 26, I received a separate
> private email telling me I could set a deadline of Dec 1, if needed
> [10].  In our continuation of the stalled thread at that point, Peter
> and I briefly discussed what ultimately became his final proposal of Dec
3.

>
> I think some details in those private emails are relevant to the
> decisions at hand, so now that Peter has released his proposal and
> because Peter originally insisted that all discussions about DBIC be
> public anyway, I am now posting the content of that private email
> thread in full. [11]
>
> Specifically, I want to call attention to Peter's description of the
> future of DBIC as "two forks developed in parallel, by noncooperating,
> openly adversarial teams" which I think is more indicative of the
> stakes and situation than the simpler question of "where does the
> DBIx::Class namespace point".  What an adversarial fork means for the
> future of the repository, mailing list, bug trackers, module
> ecosystem, and community itself, etc. is undefined and community
> members may wish to consider that in their decision process.
>
> Given Peter's stated intent to launch a "fork free of community bias",
> it's clear there is no governance alternative for the community on the
table.

> Matt's original proposal had enough support to be adopted outright
> [12], has been amended with generally good feedback, and has
> provisions for future self amendment.  I consider it operative in its
> amended form as soon as this vote is concluded, with the only missing
> piece being what specific namespaces it governs.
>
> The question thus comes down to whether the community feels "official"
> DBIC is best developed going forward by a self-governed community or
> by a single individual with absolute control (with both the good and
> ill that comes of that).  The community may wish to consider the track
> record and personalities of everyone involved for both scenarios in
> weighing a decision.
>
> As there has been more than enough time spent on these topics and/or
> waiting for clarification already, and since the options on the table
> aren't materially altered from their earlier forms, I don't believe
> further discussion, debate or new alternatives will provide better or
> clearer options for the future of DBIC.  It is time for this dispute
> to be resolved so everyone can move forward.
>
> Therefore, I submit to the list the following two proposals:
>
> * PROPOSAL A: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related
> namespaces shall be managed under the amended DBIC community
> governance structure proposed by Matt Trout.  Decisions about the
> future development of the project, including but not limited to
> stability policy, new development, branching and freezing shall be
> governed by the community under the same terms.  The community will
> choose whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that
> name or a separate name.  Peter will choose whether/how to fork DBIC to a
new namespace for independent development.
>
> * PROPOSAL B: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related
> namespaces shall be managed solely by Peter Ribasushi until he
> transfers it to another of his choosing or appears permanently
incommunicado (whether by choice,

> accident or death).    Decisions about the future development of the
> project, including but not limited to stability policy, new
> development, branching and freezing shall be made at Peter's sole
> discretion.  Peter will choose whether/how to continue active
> development of DBIC under that or a separate name.  The community,
> under the governance proposal, will choose whether/how to fork DBIC to
> a new namespace for independent development.
>
> List members should reply to this email with an email body indicating
> clearly "Proposal A" or "Proposal B".  Other responses, such as "+1"
> or "me, too" replies to others' votes will be disregarded.
>
> Voting will close 72 hours after this email is sent.
>
> I will tally and announce results shortly thereafter.  I will be sole
> arbiter of any voting irregularities.  Once announced, I will transfer
> namespace permissions accordingly and consider the matter resolved.
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> [1]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-A-discussion-of-DBIC-g
> overnance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
> [2]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustaina
> bility-td7579228.html
> [3]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-A-discussion-of-DBIC-g
> overnance-and-future-development-tp7578987p7579158.html
> [4]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-concl
> usion-tp7579168p7579175.html
> [5]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/Decision-time-which-fork-inherit
> s-the-existing-DBIx-Class-namespace-tp7579255.html
> [6]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-concl
> usion-tp7579168p7579184.html
> [7]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-concl
> usion-tp7579168p7579208.html
> [8]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-concl
> usion-tp7579168p7579225.html
> [9]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/An-answer-and-a-question-tp75792
> 48p7579250.html [10]
> https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
> [11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd
> [12]
> http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-concl
> usion-td7579168.html

--
- Twitter seems more influential [than blogs] in the 'gets reported in
  the mainstream press' sense at least.               - Matt McLeod
- That'd be because the content of a tweet is easier to condense down
  to a mainstream media article.                      - Calle Dybedahl




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:03:57 +0000
From: David Precious <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace
        Control ?
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <20161205110357.113780d1@cloudburst>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:15:04 -0500
David Golden <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's time to bring this to a conclusion.

Amen :)

> List members should reply to this email with an email body indicating
> clearly "Proposal A" or "Proposal B".  Other responses, such as "+1"
> or "me, too" replies to others' votes will be disregarded.

Proposal A gets my vote.

Thank you for all your work, David.



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:18:55 +0000
From: Sam Kington <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace
        Control ?
To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list"
        <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> List members should reply to this email with an email body indicating
clearly "Proposal A" or "Proposal B".  Other responses, such as "+1" or "me,
too" replies to others' votes will be disregarded.

Proposal A.

Sam
--
Website: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/




------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 11:26:21 +0000
From: Paul Mooney <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace
        Control ?
To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list"
        <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed


I vote for Proposal A

On 05.12.2016 06:15, David Golden wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who has been participating in or just reading
> the various governance discussions since my initial email to the DBIC
> list of Oct 3. [1]
>
> It's time to bring this to a conclusion.
>
> Peter suggests that the question to consider is merely which fork gets
> the "DBIx::Class" namespace indexed on CPAN.  While that may be all he
> cares about, I feel it trivializes the discussions the community has
> been having and the decision the community is being asked to make.
>
> Without restating all the history to date, here are the facts of the
> case that I think are most relevant to consider in understanding the
> proposals at hand:
>
> * Peter's original plan that started the dispute could be summarized
> as "Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X",
> where at that time the plan appeared to be "freeze and park
> permissions with an unknown owner".
>
> * The dispute process clearly indicated that Peter didn't have the
> support of existing maintainers or the community for such a plan
> sufficient to disregard his prior permissions agreement with Matt.
>
> * Matt proposed a mechanism for the community to self-govern the DBIC
> namespace and development, sharing power between maintainers and the
> mailing list. (Revised proposal is linked as [2])
>
> * Peter revealed that his new employment situation allows him to
> continue development. [3]
>
> * Given Peter's track record and renewed availability, some in the
> community wanted to see an alternative proposal where Peter continued
> DBIC and the community took forward "DBIC2"; Andrew Beverl formalized
> a proposal [4].  In response to concerns about the proposal, Peter
> volunteered to clarify the alternative proposal.
>
> * Peter delivered an alternative proposal that could be summarized as
> "Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X",
> where at this time the plan appears to be "kickstart a DBIx::Class
> fork free of community bias". [5]
>
> Unfortunately for the community's deliberations, Peter has
> consistently provided minimal details on his plans, particularly
> regarding succession should he no longer be able to or wish to
> continue development.  After Andrew Beverl's proposal, Peter said he
> would clarify by Nov 1 [6].  This target date then slipped to Nov 5
> [7], was pushed back again on Nov 7 [8], and pushed again to Nov 17 or
> else Thanksgiving [9].  On November 10, in the middle of this sequence
> of delays, I started a private email thread with Peter asking if there
> was anything I could do to help him formalize his proposal, but the
> thread stalled on the Nov 14.  On November 26, I received a separate
> private email telling me I could set a deadline of Dec 1, if needed
> [10].  In our continuation of the stalled thread at that point, Peter
> and I briefly discussed what ultimately became his final proposal of
> Dec 3.
>
> I think some details in those private emails are relevant to the
> decisions at hand, so now that Peter has released his proposal and
> because Peter originally insisted that all discussions about DBIC be
> public anyway, I am now posting the content of that private email
> thread in full. [11]
>
> Specifically, I want to call attention to Peter's description of the
> future of DBIC as "two forks developed in parallel, by noncooperating,
> openly adversarial teams" which I think is more indicative of the
> stakes and situation than the simpler question of "where does the
> DBIx::Class namespace point".  What an adversarial fork means for the
> future of the repository, mailing list, bug trackers, module
> ecosystem, and community itself, etc. is undefined and community
> members may wish to consider that in their decision process.
>
> Given Peter's stated intent to launch a "fork free of community bias",
> it's clear there is no governance alternative for the community on the
> table.  Matt's original proposal had enough support to be adopted
> outright [12], has been amended with generally good feedback, and has
> provisions for future self amendment.  I consider it operative in its
> amended form as soon as this vote is concluded, with the only missing
> piece being what specific namespaces it governs.
>
> The question thus comes down to whether the community feels "official"
> DBIC is best developed going forward by a self-governed community or
> by a single individual with absolute control (with both the good and
> ill that comes of that).  The community may wish to consider the track
> record and personalities of everyone involved for both scenarios in
> weighing a decision.
>
> As there has been more than enough time spent on these topics and/or
> waiting for clarification already, and since the options on the table
> aren't materially altered from their earlier forms, I don't believe
> further discussion, debate or new alternatives will provide better or
> clearer options for the future of DBIC.  It is time for this dispute
> to be resolved so everyone can move forward.
>
> Therefore, I submit to the list the following two proposals:
>
> * PROPOSAL A: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related
> namespaces shall be managed under the amended DBIC community
> governance structure proposed by Matt Trout.  Decisions about the
> future development of the project, including but not limited to
> stability policy, new development, branching and freezing shall be
> governed by the community under the same terms.  The community will
> choose whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that
> name or a separate name.  Peter will choose whether/how to fork DBIC
> to a new namespace for independent development.
>
> * PROPOSAL B: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related
> namespaces shall be managed solely by Peter Ribasushi until he
> transfers it to another of his choosing or appears permanently
> incommunicado (whether by choice, accident or death).    Decisions
> about the future development of the project, including but not limited
> to stability policy, new development, branching and freezing shall be
> made at Peter's sole discretion.  Peter will choose whether/how to
> continue active development of DBIC under that or a separate name.
> The community, under the governance proposal, will choose whether/how
> to fork DBIC to a new namespace for independent development.
>
> List members should reply to this email with an email body indicating
> clearly "Proposal A" or "Proposal B".  Other responses, such as "+1"
> or "me, too" replies to others' votes will be disregarded.
>
> Voting will close 72 hours after this email is sent.
>
> I will tally and announce results shortly thereafter.  I will be sole
> arbiter of any voting irregularities.  Once announced, I will transfer
> namespace permissions accordingly and consider the matter resolved.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> [1]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-A-discussion-of-DBIC-governa
nce-and-future-development-td7578987.html
> [2]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability
-td7579228.html
> [3]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-A-discussion-of-DBIC-governa
nce-and-future-development-tp7578987p7579158.html
> [4]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-
tp7579168p7579175.html
> [5]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/Decision-time-which-fork-inherits-the-
existing-DBIx-Class-namespace-tp7579255.html
> [6]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-
tp7579168p7579184.html
> [7]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-
tp7579168p7579208.html
> [8]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-
tp7579168p7579225.html
> [9]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/An-answer-and-a-question-tp7579248p757
9250.html
> [10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
> [11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd
>
> [12]
>
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-
td7579168.html

>
> --
>
> David Golden <[hidden email]> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg
> _______________________________________________
> List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
> IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
> SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
> Searchable Archive:
> http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@...



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
DBIx-Class mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class


End of DBIx-Class Digest, Vol 138, Issue 8
******************************************


_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@...