On 24 October 2016 at 12:20, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us> wrote: > On 10/23/2016 10:55 PM, Christian Walde wrote: >> >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:19:42 +0200, Andrew Beverley <a...@andybev.com> >> wrote: >> >>> - Riba was prepared to keep maintaining (and "tightening" in slower >>> time) "DBIC" >> >> >> As far as i understood there was no circumstance under which he'd have >> been involved further, at all. > > > The situation has changed. Notably I have taken up employment where (all > current plans considered) I will have to maintain at minimum a private fork > of DBIx::Class for my own use.
Sounds like a bad position to start from, you should introduce the company to standards and working with CPAN, it's a great place where people can work together to achieve a standard set of tools so we don't all have to relearn every module when we start a new job. > In light of several proposals on the list, the gist of my *revised* position > is: > > > - If there is sufficient interest in myself continuing to be the sole > gatekeeper/point of responsibility for the DBIx::Class distribution > > and > > - Folks are not concerned with neither my tangibly limited availability > going forward (I started a 40h/week job), nor with the potential conflict of > interest (i.e. that I might slip up and put $work concerns ahead of the > userbase) Isn't this the argument you put against a community effort, where people might put new features ahead of stability? This sounds like the worst of all options. I'd rather such a key project as DBIx::Class was managed by a team of people, dedicated to stability and clarity of process, not a single point of failure or opinion. Leo _______________________________________________ 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
