★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
51 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

David Golden
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-governance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
[2] http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability-td7579228.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-tp7579248p7579250.html
[10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
[11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd
--
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Pedro Melo

Proposal A

 

From: David Golden <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday 5 December 2016 at 06:15
To: DBIC Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Dbix-class]
VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control

 

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-governance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
[2] http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability-td7579228.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-tp7579248p7579250.html
[10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
[11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd

--

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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Matthias Zeichmann
Proposal A

Am 05.12.2016 08:10 schrieb "Pedro Melo" <[hidden email]>:

Proposal A

 

From: David Golden <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday 5 December 2016 at 06:15
To: DBIC Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Dbix-class]
VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control

 

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-governance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
[2] http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability-td7579228.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-tp7579248p7579250.html
[10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
[11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd

--

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@...

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Richard Newsham
In reply to this post by David Golden

Proposal A


On 05/12/16 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-governance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
[2] http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability-td7579228.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-tp7579248p7579250.html
[10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
[11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd
--
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@...


_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Chisel

Proposal A


On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, 07:32 Richard Newsham, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Proposal A


On 05/12/16 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
--
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@...

_______________________________________________
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@...

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Dave Cross-2
In reply to this post by David Golden
PROPOSAL A


On 05/12/16 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-governance-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-governance-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-tp7579248p7579250.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] <mailto:[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@...
>

--
Dave Cross :: [hidden email]
http://dave.org.uk/
@davorg

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

David Dorward
In reply to this post by David Golden
Proposal A

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Stefan Hornburg (Racke)
In reply to this post by David Golden
Proposal A

On 12/05/2016 07:15 AM, 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-governance-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-governance-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-tp7579248p7579250.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] <mailto:[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@...
>


--
Ecommerce and Linux consulting + Perl and web application programming.
Debian and Sympa administration.

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Kaare Rasmussen
In reply to this post by David Golden
Proposal A

On 2016-12-05 07:15, 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-governance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
[2] http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability-td7579228.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-tp7579248p7579250.html
[10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
[11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd
--
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@...



_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Leo Lapworth
In reply to this post by Chisel
Proposal A

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Patrick Meidl-2
In reply to this post by David Golden
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



_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Darren Duncan
In reply to this post by David Golden
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.


_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
In reply to this post by David Golden
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-governance-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-governance-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-tp7579248p7579250.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

--
- 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


_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

David Precious
In reply to this post by David Golden
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.

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Sam Kington
In reply to this post by David Golden
> 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/


_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Paul Mooney
In reply to this post by David Golden

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-governance-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-governance-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-tp7579248p7579250.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@...

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Colin Newell
In reply to this post by David Golden
Proposal A


Colin.

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Lianna Eeftinck
Proposal A

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:26 AM Colin Newell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Proposal A


Colin.

_______________________________________________
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@...

_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

David Stevenson
Proposal A


_______________________________________________
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@...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Jorge Gonzalez
In reply to this post by Matthias Zeichmann
Proposal A.

--
Jorge González Villalonga
Ingeniero de Sistemas / Systems Engineer
Red Hat Certified Engineer #140-183-666
Móvil / Cell: (+34) 672 173 200

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Zeichmann <[hidden email]>
To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: lun., 05 dic. 2016 14:14
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Proposal A

Am 05.12.2016 08:10 schrieb "Pedro Melo" <[hidden email]>:

Proposal A

 

From: David Golden <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <[hidden email]>
Date: Monday 5 December 2016 at 06:15
To: DBIC Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Dbix-class]
VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control

 

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-governance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
[2] http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability-td7579228.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-tp7579248p7579250.html
[10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
[11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd

--

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@...

_______________________________________________
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@...
123