On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us>
> It is the responsibility of the current interim project owners (the PAUSE
> admins) to institute this balanced state.
You seem determined to invent a narrative that suits your purpose or salves
your conscience. We – the PAUSE admins – are not owners, nor obligated to
We are involved to mediate a dispute: your claim of moral authority versus
your prior agreement with Matt about a revocable transfer of primary
We said that we felt that the maintainers – and more broadly the DBIC
community – are better informed to make this decision and hoped it could be
resolved within the community.
You suggested we take it to the community via the DBIC mailing list. We
In the face of opposition to the minimal details of your plan, you
acknowledged that you didn't have the community support you thought and
"forfeited" (in your words) your claim.
We continue to be involved for three reasons:
(a) because you feel it would be against your conscience to "push the
button" to carry out the eventual wishes of the community
(b) because we believe we should continue to encourage dialog to ensure all
voices are represented
(c) because we can be a conduit for voices that aren't able to speak openly
on the mailing list
However, the responsibility for a "balanced state" rests with the
maintainers and community, as it always has. We can encourage voices to
assist in arriving at balance, but have no obligation nor responsibility to
make it happen.
> 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".
Given that the community did not support your plan to oust other
maintainers, freeze the project, and hand DBIC over to an unknown
caretaker, your claim of moral authority taking precedence over your prior
agreement with Matt does not hold up.
That means Matt is free – should he choose – to exercise his right to
resume primary permissions. He hasn't (yet) done so – instead he has
suggested revitalizing group governance rather than continuing under his
You appear to be suggesting something else, either:
(a) that Matt voluntarily give up his authority
(b) that PAUSE admins strip him of his authority
With the dispute resolved, (b) would be – in your words and the words of
others – unprecedented. The PAUSE administrators are not going to
interfere in the governance decisions of the DBIC community beyond
encouraging participation and "pushing the button" so you don't have to.
For (a) to be successful, you need to make a case either to Matt directly
or to the community to make a case to Matt for why his ceding authority is
in the best interests of the project. This is why I – speaking personally
– suggested you elaborate.
I appreciate that you did articulate a mechanism: Your view that not having
Matt in the core increases the friction for new work being included in DBIC
itself rather in separate namespaces. Having encouraged you to specifics,
I will leave assessment of the mechanism to the community.
David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org