On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Lou Berger wrote:
I think this goes to the root of the recent discussions:
- Is Quagga a community project, or a project reliant and owned by a
single person?
I want it to be a collective project. I like working to consensus, I
like discussing the technicalities. I like getting stuff merged. I like
bringing in people. I invite people to examine the record: when did the
number of people working on maintaining expand; when did it shrink? When
did Quagga have lots of commits and frequent development releases?
People are free to disagree with my preference for collectiveness and
consensus. Those are the parameters I've chosen. Others are free to
setup another community with different parameters if they feel strongly
about it.
I'm open to persuasion on everything. However I tend react to badly to
(perceived) bullying and power games.
My understanding was that the Zebra to Quagga branch occurred largely
because Zebra was really a single person controlled/owned project and
there was a desire (amount *all* working Quagga at it's start) to have
a community controlled version.
I was maintaining zebra-pj, patches to GNU Zebra, from others and
myself. There was also ZebOS at play. Kunihiro I suspect thought I was
too quick to integrate stuff with insufficient attention to stability
(as did another maintainer later). Also, I suspect - but I do not know -
that perhaps he required some kind of contributor agreement in order to
accept contributions to GNU Zebra, and if so that might have been a
factor. Hard to know.
Kunihiro made other people maintainers but not me, so I *thanked* him
and forked. I didn't hector him. I respect him. (In retrospect, I'm
actually sorry about the name I chose - I realise now it might have been
a little disrespectful; I just enjoyed the pun at the time, and didn't
think of that aspect).
He and others gave their code under the GPL, I'm immensely grateful for
it. I and others since then have added our bits.
One really important implication of this, is that the project should
continue to thrive even if/when a key contributor/maintainer
disappears or is overloaded with their "day job" for a time.
Yes.
So chart the time line of when people were made maintainers or given
integration access, against which maintainers were active at that time.
Any patterns?
The number of integrators will expand again. Governance too (though,
that's likely to take longer).
I've only been using / developing against Quagga since '09 and publicly
pushing code out for the last couple of years, so may have it wrong, but
have always viewed Quagga as a community driven / controlled project.
Do you think I have this wrong?
Now, _why_ would you have that view?
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | p...@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
Stubborn processes
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
