It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This is
entirely false.
As an *EXAMPLE* (I have not spoken to either of the poor saps below), a
team similar to that would get several +1's from me:
https://metacpan.org/author/FREW
https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG
https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI
If the number "5" is magical in some way, and diluting responsibility
further is desirable: destabilize it a bit more, e.g.
https://metacpan.org/author/FREW
https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG
https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI
https://metacpan.org/author/JROBINSON
https://metacpan.org/author/SYSPETE
As a community you seem to want prioritization of stability. Then why
aren't you clamoring for a team that *mostly* leans towards stability
*naturally*? I do not understand why settle for an illusion of a working
group fully controlled by someone who demonstrably optimizes, and went
on record intending to continue optimizing for progress for the sake of
progress.
_______________________________________________
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@lists.scsys.co.uk
