On 10/01/2016 11:07 PM, David Golden wrote:
Hi, Peter. Thank you for taking the time to organize and share your
thoughts.
> It took me a considerable amount of time to put this together, I hope
> you will respect this effort by crafting a similarly thought out
response.
Please don't confuse the speed and brevity of my response with a lack
of consideration. I've spent many hours over the past couple weeks
considering this situation and discussing it with other administrators.
This line was not directed at you specifically, but rather to the wider
set of folks who might be replying to this email.
> === Question to the PAUSE admins
> To put it in the simplest terms: what is the conversation we are
having here?
In the simplest terms:
(1) Matt appears to believe he transferred first-come permissions to
you for administrative purposes, not to abrogate his interest in the
direction of the project. [I will ask him to explain this himself
publicly, since that hasn't happened yet.]
This is correct, and happened 6 years ago. At that time both me and Matt
were completely different people, and what's more important - the
project was something completely different ( i.e. a rather crude proof
of concept, compared to what it s today )
(2) You appear to believe that because first-come permissions were
transferred to you, you can make whatever permissions changes you like
without consultation with Matt, other maintainers or the DBIC
community at large.
The administrative transfer *combined* with the amount of work put in by
myself, and the utter disinterest of all other maintainers, places me
practically, procedurally and morally in the position to unilaterally
decide what to do with said project.
Given the conflict between these views, and given that it was raised
to the attention of PAUSE administrators by both you and Matt, we have
laid out the principles by which this should be resolved.
I again must stress that there has been a huge 9+ months "discussion
period" during which nobody (besides mst) came forward expressing
concerns regarding my plans. And I have stated unambiguously on the
record that I am done pretending Matt has the user community interest at
heart, nor am I longer interested what views does Matt hold, or what he
believes. Enough is enough.
> The selected person will not be announced until after [changing
permissions]
> [...large snip...]
> If the PAUSE admins feel [Matt's] complaints do have merit - the
only way
> to address them would be by fiat.
As you have quoted the principles I laid out in my earlier email, I'm
disappointed in this response. I'm left to conclude that either you
don't understand what we're saying or else you're choosing a defiant
stance for your own purposes.
Given there has been a single complaint, by a problematic figure, not
backed up by anyone else: Yes, I truly do not understand what you are
saying.
In the hope that it's the former, I will attempt to clarify, this
time with less diplomacy and fewer words.
* PAUSE administrators feel the dispute has merit or we wouldn't be
involved.
* We have already acted by fiat to instruct you not to transfer
permissions unilaterally.
I understand your desire not to engage with Matt, but feel that's not
in the best interests of the communities involved.
I refuse to engage with Matt because he does not represent the community
you are so valiantly trying to protect. This has little to do with
desires, but rather has to do with being honest at this stage.
I again plead to any of: either a recent (or not so recent, but consider
adding why you quit) committer, or heavy users who do in fact represent
"the community" to add their voice to this thread.
Lacking the above: this entire exchange is Matt continuing to harass me
( this time with the help of PAUSE admins ) and me continuing to not
cave in to his bullying.
I'd like to you to consider some scenarios:
1. You announce your successor; Matt and other co-maintainers endorse
your choice → problem solved.
2. You announce your successor; Matt and other co-maintainers disagree
→ argument ensues.
Imagine, hypothetically, if you announced the successor *after*
transferring permissions:
3. Matt and other co-maintainers endorse your choice → problem solved.
4. Matt and other co-maintainers disagree → argument ensues, but you
no longer hold permissions and the argument is left in the hands of
your successor.
I hope you realize that scenario #4 is strictly worse for your end
goals for DBIC than scenario #2.
I do not share this view ( that #4 is worse ), otherwise I would not
have gone down this path. #4 is not an ideal, but a viable chance for
the user community to come together and take responsibility for steering
things further.
Moreover, from the standpoint of the user community, what's important
isn't who has what permissions, it's the actual future development
direction and governance model for DBIC. *The community is best served
by having the argument play out if one is required.*
Unfortunately, that means that the *most* *responsible* thing you can
do among your final acts as maintainer is engage Matt and/or the other
comaintainers and/or the DBIC community at large with your thoughts
about direction and a successor maintainer, despite your misgivings
about interacting with Matt.
The *least* *responsible* thing to do would be to continue the current
course, refuse to engage with Matt and others, and transfer
permissions to a successor unilaterally against the express
instructions of PAUSE administrators. Being irresponsible in that way
would uncut your moral authority to set direction or see your
succession wishes respected by PAUSE admins.
Above you say "refuse to engage with Matt and others": again - there
have been no "others" to date. No user or former committer has come
forward with anything even resembling dissatisfaction since I announced
my plans last December. Once again - the word "community" is being
thrown rather liberally here. So far this entire conversation is based
around a single person's delusion repeated over and over again among the
lines of [1]:
...and having asked around, none of frew, ilmari or castaway, who along with
myself and ribasushi have formed the DBIC steering cabal for quite some
time, have heard anything at all about this, and so we have no idea who he
thinks he's going to transfer the permissions to or why.
This "steering cabal" that he speaks of self-disbanded in mid 2013 and
has not existed in any shape way or form that anyone could possibly
interact with.
Therefore, I hope you'll reconsider your stance and choose to engage
more constructively.
I state again that if there are actual complaints from people involved:
I would like to hear them / about them, and I pledge to address them
constructively. Otherwise I plan to keep the present course, time
permitting.
RIBASUSHI
[1] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/10/msg96178.html
