Paul,
On 6/24/2016 10:19 AM, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Lou Berger wrote: > >> I think this goes to the root of the recent discussions: >> - Is Quagga a community project, or a project reliant and owned by a >> single person? > I want it to be a collective project. I like working to consensus, I > like discussing the technicalities. I like getting stuff merged. I like > bringing in people. I invite people to examine the record: when did the > number of people working on maintaining expand; when did it shrink? When > did Quagga have lots of commits and frequent development releases? > > People are free to disagree with my preference for collectiveness and > consensus. Those are the parameters I've chosen. Others are free to > setup another community with different parameters if they feel strongly > about it. > > I'm open to persuasion on everything. My hope is that community agreement, with input from all --- including you, would be enough to persuade all... > However I tend react to badly to > (perceived) bullying and power games. > >> My understanding was that the Zebra to Quagga branch occurred largely >> because Zebra was really a single person controlled/owned project and >> there was a desire (amount *all* working Quagga at it's start) to have >> a community controlled version. > I was maintaining zebra-pj, patches to GNU Zebra, from others and > myself. There was also ZebOS at play. Kunihiro I suspect thought I was > too quick to integrate stuff with insufficient attention to stability > (as did another maintainer later). Also, I suspect - but I do not know - > that perhaps he required some kind of contributor agreement in order to > accept contributions to GNU Zebra, and if so that might have been a > factor. Hard to know. > > Kunihiro made other people maintainers but not me, so I *thanked* him > and forked. I didn't hector him. I respect him. (In retrospect, I'm > actually sorry about the name I chose - I realise now it might have been > a little disrespectful; I just enjoyed the pun at the time, and didn't > think of that aspect). > > He and others gave their code under the GPL, I'm immensely grateful for > it. I and others since then have added our bits. For which I *am* immensely grateful! >> One really important implication of this, is that the project should >> continue to thrive even if/when a key contributor/maintainer >> disappears or is overloaded with their "day job" for a time. > Yes. > > So chart the time line of when people were made maintainers or given > integration access, against which maintainers were active at that time. > Any patterns? > > The number of integrators will expand again. Governance too (though, > that's likely to take longer). > >> I've only been using / developing against Quagga since '09 and publicly >> pushing code out for the last couple of years, so may have it wrong, but >> have always viewed Quagga as a community driven / controlled project. >> >> Do you think I have this wrong? > Now, _why_ would you have that view? Comments like the above that imply (to me) that you need to be convinced, vs that the community needs to reach agreement. Lou > regards, _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
