Am 11.05.2011 um 10:48 schrieb Erik Larsson: > IMO, it's wise to keep the number of owners exactly two. That way the project > is somewhat protected from a possible future power struggle, while not being > fully dependent on one single individual. What do you think about this?
Having an odd number of project owners makes voting processes a lot easier. > If you agree with that approach, then as project 'owners' I would nominate > myself and preferably someone who has a long history of involvement in the > project, through mailing list participation and otherwise. Jeff Mancuso of > ExpanDrive is one name that springs to mind. Tomas Carnecky, Sam Moffatt, > Graham Perrin have also been around for a long time and have shown real > commitment. (All are welcome to argue for/against themselves or someone else.) Would be nice to hear from Jeff, Tomas, Sam and Graham what they think about this. My opinion on the matter: Jeff Mancuso wrote on May 6th: >> Thomas has graciously given the MaCFUSE repository back to ExpanDrive >> [we registered it for this exact purpose a couple months ago] and >> we're the owners of the organization right now. A couple of months ago ... There has been absolutely no development until Anatol stepped up a week ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the guys at ExpanDrive did not do anything with the repository for months, neither did Tomas. Not even the svn trunk had been imported. I would certainly expect much more involvement from a future project owner. This kind of reminds me of the whole "Amit situation". I think I don't have to remind anybody that Anatol got us the project ownership at Google Code not Jeff, Tomas, Sam or Graham who have been part of the community for a long time. I'm all for having many contributors/committers that know the MacFUSE code base but I'm not that fond of giving away the project ownership just to be back where we started in the first place. Please don't get me wrong here, I'm very grateful for the work and time everybody has put into MacFUSE and its support in the mailing list. > The way I see it, the Google code project is going to be used for updating > 'CurrentRelease.plist' and 'DeveloperRelease.plist' (in SVN), posting > downloads and updating wiki information, while the actual development will be > done through github (Google Code doesn't offer git hosting as far as I can > tell). So the Google Code project will be mostly a funnel for what is > considered an 'official' release. I would prefer git, too. The macfuse organization owned by ExpanDrive might come in handy. Regards, Benjamin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacFUSE" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macfuse?hl=en.
