On 10/02/2016 01:33 PM, David Golden wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Peter Rabbitson <ribasu...@cpan.org
<mailto:ribasu...@cpan.org>> wrote:
> 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.
We repeat: by PAUSE admin fiat, this is no longer true. Saying it
repeatedly will not make it true.
I considered preemptively escrowing DBIC primary permissions with
ADOPTME pending the outcome of these discussions, but felt that might
discourage you from participating further and might show unfair bias
against your ideas and moral authority, which is not our goal.
However – make no mistake – unilateral transfers will be undone
unless we feel satisfied that the principles we have established for
an orderly resolution have been honored.
Your (the admins) position has been noted.
< snip >
> I am still planning to remove all co-maint perms and handover the first-come
> to a yet-undisclosed person. Given no clear line of succession [...]
> the only responsible thing to do is to select a single spot of
> responsibility and provide all possible support and infrastructure
> for a proper project-freeze.
That's not "I'm leaving CPAN and will be letting others take things
forward". That's "I'm kicking out everyone already involved and
freezing the project."
The above is a verifiably dishonest statement. Nobody else is involved
at this stage and has not been for years.
< snip>
We don't oppose your plan. We oppose the lack of transparency around
an important decision for an important CPAN project.
I explained my reasoning for the lack of transparency, and am repeating
it here again:
The selected person will not be announced until after the fact, in
order to insulate him from having to deal with mst, before any
permission transfer has taken place (or before my own work has even
completed). In order to ease tensions I *will* share that he is a well
known community member and was an invitee to at least one Perl5 QA
Hackathon.
If the above is not satisfactory to the PAUSE admins - then I am afraid
your only option is to administratively prevent me from doing that, as
outlined at the start of this email.
We, too, encourage other maintainers and/or community members to join
the conversation.
As suggested in an earlier email: the PAUSE admins (as the only
legitimate concerned party at this point) would likely benefit having
this question asked in a wider forum ( the DBIC mailing list and/or
other channels ). Essentially someone has to trigger a "vote of no
confidence", otherwise this entire exchange is just a time consuming farce.
At this point the layout of various positions seems clear. My own plans
remain as described earlier: I plan to continue work for a bit longer,
and go through with my original plan of action, baring an uproar from
the user community.
Regards
RIBASUSHI
