I don't see how more people would either "dilute responsibility" nor
destabilize the team. For example, consider the people who hold comaint on
the Moose namespace:
Both of these projects have some authors who contribute frequently, and some
less frequently, but in both cases it is reassuring to know that there are
additional people waiting in the wings to step in should a crisis occur
(either of the "she's off her meds" sort or "she was hit by a bus" sort).
Further, I would point out that Matt is comaint of both of these projects,
has **added to** the stability of them through his presence and advice, not
detracted from it.
Besides, Matt has held comaint on DBIx::Class itself all this time and has
meddled with the direction set by its BDFL for years; why would this be
expected to change if the leadership changed? I am baffled at how such a
would be presumed.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us>
> It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This is
> entirely false.
> As an *EXAMPLE* (I have not spoken to either of the poor saps below), a
> team similar to that would get several +1's from me:
> If the number "5" is magical in some way, and diluting responsibility
> further is desirable: destabilize it a bit more, e.g.
> As a community you seem to want prioritization of stability. Then why
> aren't you clamoring for a team that *mostly* leans towards stability
> *naturally*? I do not understand why settle for an illusion of a working
> group fully controlled by someone who demonstrably optimizes, and went on
> record intending to continue optimizing for progress for the sake of
> 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/
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org