Giovanni Bajo wrote: > The current request is: "please, readers of python-dev, setup a team of 6-10 > people to handle roundup or we'll go to a non-free software for bug > tracking". This is something which I cannot cope with, and I'm *speaking* > up against. Were the request lowered to something more reasonable, I'd be > willing to *act*.
No, the announcement stated the situation in a very different way. Asking for a group of maintainers to commit to an essential piece of infrastructure is perfectly reasonable. Brett didn't ask for 6-10 full time developer/sysadmins. He asked for typical commitment, which is up to a few hours per week. The initial work will probably be significant, but will undoubtedly taper off over time. Go back to the original announcement: """ After evaluating the trackers on several points (issue creation, querying, etc.), we reached a tie between JIRA and Roundup in terms of pure tracker features. """ JIRA gets a leg up because of the hosting and administration also being offered. But... """ If enough people step forward we will notify python-dev that Roundup should be considered the recommendation of the committee and graciously turn down Atlassian's offer. """ That is a perfectly reasonable offer. Put up or shut up. > And besides the only thing I'm really sniping the PSF against is about > *ever* having thought of non-FLOSS software. This is something I *really* do > not accept. ... I just > disagree with their initial requirements (and I have not raised this point > before because, believe me if you can, I really thought it was obvious and > implicit). That just shows that you were being naïve. The initial requirements were published openly and clearly. > I do respect the fact > that the PSF committee did a thorough and correct evaluation: Yes, they did, and you should be thanking them instead of complaining. If you feel so strongly, please volunteer. -- David Goodger -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list