On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us> [2016-10-11 17:28]:
> > Additionally stability on its own isn't tangible, nor does it yield
> > a final product. It is simply a mindset. When this mindset is not
> > represented in the group as a whole, it makes no difference whatsoever
> > whether a small part of said group is advocating it or not.
> (And in fact, any time a whatever-czar is appointed I would worry that
> the presence of such a role will tempt the rest of the team to slack off
> in their own consideration of the faux-delegated concern. If the role of
> that person is a mentor rather than a czar – then that is an arrangement
> which might work. But it requires willingness of every other team member
> to actually be mentored and carry that concern personally, as opposed to
> e.g. considering the project to be trying too hard to be secure or well-
> designed, relative to everyone else in the same ecosystem.)
The mentor style is rather more what I hand in mind.
Or, at least, I was assuming that, generally, we would all care about
trying to keep DBIC's backcompat record relatively intact, and the extra
person would be there to remind us -before- something ships if they think
we're not paying as much attention as we should be.
However, given it seems fairly likely at this point that riba's toys have
reached escape velocity and we're never going to get them back into the
pram, I'm more inclined to say "fifth seat: was 'whoever riba wants', now
'whoever the userbase wants', though I might make a suggestion if the
user base doesn't"
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue
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.
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org