On 05/01/2015 11:23 AM, David Golden wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Peter Rabbitson <ribasu...@cpan.org
<mailto:ribasu...@cpan.org>> wrote:
On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote:
It nonetheless implies (a) that few obstacles remain
I am claiming exactly this. A hastily put together list of 5
points, without a hint of a mechanism of adding new points *is*
for all intents and purposes "few obstacles remain".
They are not small obstacles. And, via this list, we do have a
governance mechanism for additional criteria.
What I would oppose, however, is an unbounded sequence of new
obstacles introduced after all prior obstacles are overcome (without
new evidence or concerns coming to light), as I don't think that's
fair to Chad (or any developer). That's a passive-aggressive way of
saying "no", which isn't good governance.
I absolutely agree with the last (only last) sentence. Hence why I tried
to (but evidently failed miserably) to say "no" as early and as clearly
as possible. I do not agree with the rest quotation, but that's
water/bridge anyway, so pointless to spend time discussing further
(again - I will publicly substantiate this upon request).
Instead of a "you don't care, so I quit" message (i.e. virtually
rather than physically walking out of the room in protest), I'd have
preferred one or more of these sorts of contributions:
* "hey, given the changes in the code base, I'm not going to review
anything until it's settled down more"
* "hey, in light of X, Y, Z new facts, here are some additional things
I'd like to see on the punch list, does anyone else agree?"
* "hey, in light of the CPAN river conversation, I think others might
agree with me now that the risks of change are too high. Does anyone
want to
I agree that within the narrow context of "moving things forward" a FYIQ
response is the least desirable one. However within the context of the
bigger picture, combined with my belief system I can no longer
participate in this process without severely compromising my own
integrity. Thus "my only winning move is not to play".
This doesn't mean that my position itself is changing, I am simply
electing (with a visible record) to stop advocating it in this instance.
It is still there for the taking by anyone else sufficiently motivated.
