develooper Front page | perl.modules | Postings from September 2016

Message from PAUSE Admins to DBIx::Class maintainers [resend]

Thread Next
From:
David Golden
Date:
September 21, 2016 23:52
Subject:
Message from PAUSE Admins to DBIx::Class maintainers [resend]
Message ID:
CAOeq1c-NEtEdKf-UbX+uH3AXKvt8XM6c+QgGjndAgSkD-eeaMw@mail.gmail.com
[In response to a request by Peter Rabbitson to keep discussions in the
public record, I am resending this email verbatim and adding
modules@perl.org to the recipient list.  I will follow up with a copy of
his reply and my response to that.]

[bcc: PAUSE administrators]

Hello, everyone.

I'm writing privately on behalf of the PAUSE administrators in response to
private and public
<http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/09/msg96115.html>
communications concerning the succession of primary maintainership of
DBIx::Class ("DBIC").

(Please note that Matt Trout has agreed to participate in resolving these
concerns only in his capacity as a DBIx::Class maintainer and will not use
his PAUSE administrative powers to affect the outcome.)

*tl;dr: PAUSE administrators would like you to talk this out.*

The rest of this email explains our thoughts and suggests a path forward.

When I write "we" or "our", consider that to mean PAUSE admins.  I use the
term "maintainers" to mean everyone with either primary or co-maintainer
permissions for DBIC.


*Our position:*
(1) Given the importance of DBIC to the broader Perl community (i.e. way "
upriver <http://neilb.org/2015/04/20/river-of-cpan.html>"), we’d like to
see a more open discussion between existing maintainers about what happens
next in terms of DBIC leadership and control of primary permissions.

(2) The best outcome from our perspective would be for a successor to be
decided by consensus of existing maintainers.

(3) Given a dispute among maintainers, the only outcome that is absolutely
unacceptable to PAUSE admins would be a unilateral permissions transfer
decision.

(4) We really hope the DBIC maintainers and/or community can resolve this
internally.

*Path forward:*

I am available personally to mediate discussions if that would help
facilitate the necessary conversations.  What follows are my personal
thoughts on what might help.

The "elephant in the room" appears to be hearing who Peter is proposing as
a successor and his rationale for choosing that person.

Because that reveal hasn't happened, perhaps there are some precursor
decisions to discuss first.  These might include:

   - Should succession discussions be done in public or in private?
   - If private, should anyone other than maintainers be involved?
   - Is email or some other venue best for the discussion?
   - Are there project direction/philosophy decisions that need to be
   resolved first?

Regarding public vs. private, I would encourage private discussion of a
successor out of consideration for the person(s) involved.

Regarding philosophy, I've been made aware of a possible "cathedral vs
bazaar" difference of opinion among maintainers about future direction for
DBIC.  If so, I encourage you all to resolve that separately and possibly
publicly within the broader DBIC community before trying to decide on a
successor.

Regarding the venue: if (virtual) face-to-face chat would help, I can
arrange a video conference for us.  It's possible that higher bandwidth and
hearing voice tone might help compared to purely text conversation.

I welcome your thoughts or questions on this note as well as your own
thoughts on how to move this forward towards resolution.

Regards,
David Golden

-- 
David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg

Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About