On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Beverley <a...@andybev.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden <x...@xdg.me> wrote: > > So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant > > Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute. > > > > I.e. he could – on arbitrary day N after your proposal is adopted – > > merge his remaining work, transfer permissions to an unknown person > > with an unknown mandate, and retire (aka. the original "project > > freeze" plan). > > Yes, correct, just like lots of other "upstream" module maintainers > could do the same. > > Like I say, I personally trust him not to cause such a train-smash Please read the section entitled "=== Future Plans" in this message from Peter: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/10/msg96174.html What I suggested was not a hypothetical "train-smash" intended to scare you or others. It was literally his plan for DBIC as of Oct 1. In making your proposal "B", you are indicating that you support that specific plan if that's what Peter decides is best for DBIC now or at any point in the future. Again, I have no objections if the DBIC community gives informed consent to such a plan. Speaking personally, I can understand the appeal of such certainty around stability. I, too, look forward to Peter's thoughts, as perhaps his thinking on the matter has evolved since a month ago. Regards, 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@lists.scsys.co.uk
