This doesn't appear to have fully displayed in the web archives so I'm replying-to-self with the full text quoted in the hopes that works to give people something they can link to.
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 05:31:56PM +0000, Matt S Trout wrote: > A little late to the party, but I needed to get my thoughts straight. > > I originally intervened because the plan as I then understood it was "end > DBIC feature development and transfer ownership to an unknown CPAN author who > wasn't one of the main contributors so far as I could tell" (though of course > I couldn't be sure because I didn't know - and still don't - who it was > intended to be). > > From my point of view "end feature development" is effectively equivalent to > "declare project over" (and that seems to be a relatively common POV, as the > responses to a certain recent perl.com article have made quite visible), and > I felt that the community should have some input into so momentous and > potentially irrevocable a decision. > > The eventual end result of the debate on the list seemed to indicate that > continuing to move forward - albeit extremely carefully, as befits an > infrastructure level project - was the general consensus, but the sheer > vitriol level of the discussion left me substantially burned out in terms > of the project. > > I was *expecting* that one or both of "mst recovers from burnout wrt DBIC" or > "community engages and starts making proposals" would happen within a few > months; neither did, and it's now a little over a year on and I still haven't > been able to muster the time and motivation to get things moving forwards > again. I was, admittedly, hoping to do that shortly, but given I've been in > a mental state of "hoping to do that shortly" for about the past year I don't > think it's reasonable or fair to ask people to rely on it coming true *this* > time, especially given I don't think I can honestly claim that *I'm* convinced > I'm not still deluding myself in that regard. > > So at this point, the decision under discussion is basically "retain the > status quo, with the attached risk of de-facto death by good intentions that > never go anywhere" versus "give the project to the only person other than me > with a truly in-depth understanding of the architecture who's also the only > person other than me to have led the project, who's now indicated that he is > once again willing to do so". > > I think under the circumstances it's pretty clear which of these options > gives DBIC the better odds and best opportunity for ongoing success. > > As such: > > +1 > > -- mst, out. > > -- > If you truly love something, set it free. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team. _______________________________________________ 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