Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

2016-10-30 Thread David Golden
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Matt S Trout wrote: > As such, I petition the PAUSE administration to leave things alone while > the > community sorts things out > > Sure. We've always maintained that there was no rush and that discussion was the best course of action. I

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

2016-10-30 Thread Matt S Trout
(bcced again to the modules list) On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 08:43:03AM +, Andrew Beverley wrote: > Given that there was no formal vote, I think this is a somewhat hasty > and unfair conclusion. It's a bit like having an election with only one > party, having people vote, and then mentioning a

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

2016-10-30 Thread Dmitry Bigunyak
>Given that there was no formal vote, I think this is a somewhat hasty >and unfair conclusion. It's a bit like having an election with only one >party, having people vote, and then mentioning a second party later >once the election's finished. I personally was just about to vote in >favour of the

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

2016-10-30 Thread Charlie Garrison
On 30 Oct 2016, at 19:43, Andrew Beverley wrote: > Personally I would like to see a straightforward "A vs B" vote. Only > then will I consider this a fair decision. +1 -- Charlie Garrison github.com/cngarrison metacpan.org/author/CNG

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

2016-10-30 Thread Andrew Beverley
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 20:47:20 -0400 David Golden wrote: > I'm very pleased to see how the DBIC community has engaged in honest > discussion about self-governance. It's been a long road, but one > that I think will serve the community well going forward. > > I'll make the changes in