On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:13 PM, bulk88 <bul...@hotmail.com> wrote: Where is the list described in #2 for Perl-Toolchain-Gang controlled > modules? >
The policy was decided, and I know it was implemented for some modules, but not necessarily on all yet. This is a goal, not an immediate reality. Do all 30 people listed in PTG have the same perms and standing in PTG? > PTG commit bits are mainly about practicality, IMO. Thinking about the PTG as a community is a far more useful concept to me. > Are all 30 people free to push to all ~27 PTG repos at any time? > Technically free or socially free? > IMO anyone is free to push to a branch on any of the repos (unless there's a reason to believe otherwise), but if you need to ask if you can merge to master you probably shouldn't. Who has the root password to the PTG github account to add and remove > members from that list? I'll assume there is more than 1 person. > Andy, Ricardo, Schwern, mst, xdg and me. I do not consider us the owners of PTG in any way, more like caretakers. > BINGOS does many CPAN releases for PTG modules for a number of years now > but he rarely writes code. In PAUSE, there is a concept of owner, and > comaint. Do these have relevance to who is the owner of a PTG module? I > find any "Author" section in PTG module pod to be years or a decade out of > date. Is the Pod's author the "owner" of the module and still responsible > for it even though it is under PTG care? > I don't think you can generalize these questions within the PTG, it's different for different projects. I do think we can and should document policies better. Tuits are always in short supply though. [20:10] <bulk88> I filed a plan for getting EUMM back onto monthly or > bimonthly releases and get the git repo back into sane plan, you deleted it. > [20:11] <@mst> I'm not asking you to monday morning quarterback our branch > management > > So MST says PTG is one closed group. In effect, a secret society, and it > is none of the business of the public to criticize or question that secret > society. And who is "our"? All 30 members? > Your way of arguing about this is rather frustrating for a lot of people, that's the «monday morning quarterback» he's talking about. You may find your enquiries to be a lot more effective if you had just asked something like «What is the current status of ExtUtils::MakeMaker? I'm worried about whether some functionality of 7.06 not making into a stable release on time for the next release of perl and I'm not sure what branch I should work from now». Currently you're coming off as a lot more hostile than you probably intend to. > There are 30 people, they hide behind the anonymous structure of PTG. If > PTG is really consensus, all 30 people must vote on each ticket/PR, with > their votes public record, and every member of the public has a right to > hold those 30 people and their votes responsible for API design/merges. > Step up and take responsibility for your work. If you don't like the > responsibility, step down from PTG and become a random member of the public. > PTG is not a formal organization with voting procedures. It's more like a village where people live side-by-side but sometimes talk about issues that affect everyone else. Why did EU::MM development stall (my question)? > Mostly because of a lack of tuits really. Quite frankly, for most other people the current status-quo is fine (unlike 7.06), the regressions have been fixed so other changes aren't urgent. I think you're underestimating how conservative a lot of us are when it comes to MakeMaker. > Why didnt mohawk take over releasing EUMM from bingos (my question)? > He would have been insane to accept that, really. Leon
