On 10/14/2016 08:48 AM, David Golden wrote:
So, speaking personally, I understand clearly that you object to Matt
being part of a core team, but I'd like to understand the *mechanism* by
which you think that will change the evolution of DBIC.
Even if Matt were not on a core team, or even if he didn't have PAUSE
permissions, I don't think he would disappear from the project. I think
he would – if he desired – continue to advocate for his points of view,
much as he does in many other parts of the Perl ecosystem where he
doesn't have administrative authority.
Therefore, I'd like to understand whether you think Matt not being on
the core team has merely symbolic power, or whether you think it has a
tangible effect and, if so, how you see that working in practice?
It is exactly *because* mst will continue advocating his amply
documented "stable but just about" vision, and because of how
(inconsistently) influential he is within the general public, some sort
of balance tending towards the status quo needs to be introduced.
It is the responsibility of the current interim project owners (the
PAUSE admins) to institute this balanced state.
On the question of mechanism: it would be logical that when *all* work
*has* to go through a set of eyes predominantly *not* interested in
exciting new stuff, the friction will increase the chances of said work
happening where it belongs: in separate opt-in namespaces.
David, the fact that you equate "not giving a key" with "symbolic value"
is deeply troubling to me, on both personal and administrative level.
Your question essentially reads "but mst will still try to be involved,
why not just let him play".
Imagine where we would have been with Test::Builder today if Exodist was
just a chap with badly implemented ideas trying to push them to a wider
If it is still unclear why Matt specifically: one has to start somewhere
- why not with the disproportionally largest elephant in the room.
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org