Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system

2016-10-31 Thread Gavin Henry
Hi all, Just caught up with this all. Been a long time. My business is a big user of dbic and Cataylst, so I'm eager for all to live on and be managed well. Having worked with Matt via the community and commercially since 2005, I and my business +1 this. It's just like creating a company board wit

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

2016-10-31 Thread Fernan Aguero
+1 for the fork On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > My current thought is that a fork may be the best solution in the short > term, with the following clarifications or amendments. > > 1. Peter Rabbitson would have the exclusive PAUSE permissions to the > DBIx::Class namespac

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

2016-10-31 Thread Dmitry Bigunyak
>On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout < m...@shadowcat.co.uk > wrote: >> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >> proposal, > >TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the >results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier >suggestions[2]

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

2016-10-31 Thread Darren Duncan
My current thought is that a fork may be the best solution in the short term, with the following clarifications or amendments. 1. Peter Rabbitson would have the exclusive PAUSE permissions to the DBIx::Class namespace and would continue to perform releases of his work on it as he wanted to do.

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

2016-10-31 Thread Andrew Beverley
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:22:32 -0400 David Golden wrote: > 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 other

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

2016-10-31 Thread David Golden
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden 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 prop

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

2016-10-31 Thread fREW Schmidt
+1 On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:22:07AM +, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > > proposal, > > TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the > results[1]. I was merel

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

2016-10-31 Thread Aaron Trevena
On 31 October 2016 at 12:18, James E Keenan wrote: > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: >> >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: >>> >>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >>> proposal, >> >> >> TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a propos

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

2016-10-31 Thread Michael Hamlin
I am in favor of Andy's proposal (forking). My current understanding is there are developers interested in working in both directions, and this proposal permits that to happen. If the projects diverge, so be it. If one ceases to be actively maintained, so be it. This is not unusual in OSS or CP

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

2016-10-31 Thread Andrew Beverley
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:18:59 Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden 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

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

2016-10-31 Thread Andrew Beverley
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden 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 t

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

2016-10-31 Thread David Golden
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > > Could you please clarify your proposal with details on that front and > > what is to happen should Peter be unable or unwilling to continue > > working on DBIC? > > It would be no different to any other module. Ribasushi nominates > some

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

2016-10-31 Thread Andrew Beverley
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:39:29 -0400 David Golden wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > > > - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace > > > > > Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other > maintainers relinquished their claims to the DBIC namespace

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

2016-10-31 Thread Peter Rabbitson
On 10/31/2016 01:39 PM, David Golden wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley mailto:a...@andybev.com>> wrote: - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other maintainers relinquished their claims to the DBIC namespace

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

2016-10-31 Thread Christian Walde
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:22:07 +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full proposal, But, in that case, I propose: I think mst was referring to your plan of having an "A v B" vote. -- With r

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

2016-10-31 Thread Chase Whitener
-1 from me, too. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > James E Keenan writes: > >> On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full proposal,

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

2016-10-31 Thread Leo Lapworth
On 31 October 2016 at 11:22, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: >> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >> proposal, > > TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the > results[1]. I was merely bringing up one o

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

2016-10-31 Thread Fernan Aguero
+1 on this proposal. everyone should be happy with this. From reading silently all the proposals in this thread, it is clear that we all want DBIC to move forward, if that means letting RIBA have the namespace and MST and the new governance to be able to work on DBIC freely, then separating the na

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

2016-10-31 Thread Patrick Meidl
On Mon, Oct 31 2016, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > James E Keenan writes: > > > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > >>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > >>> proposal, > >> > >> TBH, I didn't

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

2016-10-31 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
James E Keenan writes: > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: >>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >>> proposal, >> >> TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the >> results[1]. I w

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

2016-10-31 Thread David Golden
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace > > Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other maintainers relinquished their claims to the DBIC namespace [1]. Could you please clarify your proposal with details on that fron

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

2016-10-31 Thread James E Keenan
On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full proposal, TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlie

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

2016-10-31 Thread Andrew Beverley
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > proposal, TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier suggestions[2], which several others also see