Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Jonathan Scott Duff]

Proposal A

-Scott

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:15 AM, David Golden  wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who has been participating in or just reading the
> various governance discussions since my initial email to the DBIC list of
> Oct 3. [1]
>
> It's time to bring this to a conclusion.
>
> Peter suggests that the question to consider is merely which fork gets the
> "DBIx::Class" namespace indexed on CPAN.  While that may be all he cares
> about, I feel it trivializes the discussions the community has been having
> and the decision the community is being asked to make.
>
> Without restating all the history to date, here are the facts of the case
> that I think are most relevant to consider in understanding the proposals
> at hand:
>
> * Peter's original plan that started the dispute could be summarized as
> "Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X", where
> at that time the plan appeared to be "freeze and park permissions with an
> unknown owner".
>
> * The dispute process clearly indicated that Peter didn't have the support
> of existing maintainers or the community for such a plan sufficient to
> disregard his prior permissions agreement with Matt.
>
> * Matt proposed a mechanism for the community to self-govern the DBIC
> namespace and development, sharing power between maintainers and the
> mailing list. (Revised proposal is linked as [2])
>
> * Peter revealed that his new employment situation allows him to continue
> development. [3]
>
> * Given Peter's track record and renewed availability, some in the
> community wanted to see an alternative proposal where Peter continued DBIC
> and the community took forward "DBIC2"; Andrew Beverl formalized a proposal
> [4].  In response to concerns about the proposal, Peter volunteered to
> clarify the alternative proposal.
>
> * Peter delivered an alternative proposal that could be summarized as
> "Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X", where
> at this time the plan appears to be "kickstart a DBIx::Class fork free of
> community bias". [5]
>
> Unfortunately for the community's deliberations, Peter has consistently
> provided minimal details on his plans, particularly regarding succession
> should he no longer be able to or wish to continue development.  After
> Andrew Beverl's proposal, Peter said he would clarify by Nov 1 [6].  This
> target date then slipped to Nov 5 [7], was pushed back again on Nov 7 [8],
> and pushed again to Nov 17 or else Thanksgiving [9].  On November 10, in
> the middle of this sequence of delays, I started a private email thread
> with Peter asking if there was anything I could do to help him formalize
> his proposal, but the thread stalled on the Nov 14.  On November 26, I
> received a separate private email telling me I could set a deadline of Dec
> 1, if needed [10].  In our continuation of the stalled thread at that
> point, Peter and I briefly discussed what ultimately became his final
> proposal of Dec 3.
>
> I think some details in those private emails are relevant to the decisions
> at hand, so now that Peter has released his proposal and because Peter
> originally insisted that all discussions about DBIC be public anyway, I am
> now posting the content of that private email thread in full. [11]
>
> Specifically, I want to call attention to Peter's description of the
> future of DBIC as "two forks developed in parallel, by noncooperating,
> openly adversarial teams" which I think is more indicative of the stakes
> and situation than the simpler question of "where does the DBIx::Class
> namespace point".  What an adversarial fork means for the future of the
> repository, mailing list, bug trackers, module ecosystem, and community
> itself, etc. is undefined and community members may wish to consider that
> in their decision process.
>
> Given Peter's stated intent to launch a "fork free of community bias",
> it's clear there is no governance alternative for the community on the
> table.  Matt's original proposal had enough support to be adopted outright
> [12], has been amended with generally good feedback, and has provisions for
> future self amendment.  I consider it operative in its amended form as soon
> as this vote is concluded, with the only missing piece being what specific
> namespaces it governs.
>
> The question thus comes down to whether the community feels "official"
> DBIC is best developed going forward by a self-governed community or by a
> single individual with absolute control (with both the good and ill that
> comes of that).  The community may wish to consider the track record and
> personalities of everyone involved for both scenarios in weighing a
> decision.
>
> As there has been more than enough time spent on these topics and/or
> waiting for clarification already, and since the options on the table
> aren't materially altered from their earlier forms, I don't believe further
> discussion, debate or new alternatives will provide better or 

Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Aaron Crane]

David Golden  wrote:
> List members should reply to this email with an email body indicating
> clearly "Proposal A" or "Proposal B".  Other responses, such as "+1" or "me,
> too" replies to others' votes will be disregarded.

Proposal A

-- 
Aaron Crane ** http://aaroncrane.co.uk/

___
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk

Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Chris Prather]

Proposal A
___
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk

Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[joe higton]

​Proposal A
___
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk

Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Konstantin A. Pustovalov]

Proposal B


___
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk

[Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Sue Spence]

Proposal A

I would like to continue to use DBIx::Class as it exists now, and will be
developed by the proposed team.

Peter, you have done an absolutely superb job.Thank you.
___
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk

Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Dave Jacoby]

Tried previously, but perhaps before I confirmed.

Proposal A

(Not meant as double-vote, if the other came through.)

On 12/06/2016 11:28 AM, Hartmaier Alexander wrote:

Proposal A

Best regards, Alex


On 2016-12-05 07:15, David Golden wrote:

Thank you to everyone who has been participating in or just reading
the various governance discussions since my initial email to the DBIC
list of Oct 3. [1]

It's time to bring this to a conclusion.

Peter suggests that the question to consider is merely which fork gets
the "DBIx::Class" namespace indexed on CPAN.  While that may be all he
cares about, I feel it trivializes the discussions the community has
been having and the decision the community is being asked to make.

Without restating all the history to date, here are the facts of the
case that I think are most relevant to consider in understanding the
proposals at hand:

* Peter's original plan that started the dispute could be summarized
as "Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X",
where at that time the plan appeared to be "freeze and park
permissions with an unknown owner".

* The dispute process clearly indicated that Peter didn't have the
support of existing maintainers or the community for such a plan
sufficient to disregard his prior permissions agreement with Matt.

* Matt proposed a mechanism for the community to self-govern the DBIC
namespace and development, sharing power between maintainers and the
mailing list. (Revised proposal is linked as [2])

* Peter revealed that his new employment situation allows him to
continue development. [3]

* Given Peter's track record and renewed availability, some in the
community wanted to see an alternative proposal where Peter continued
DBIC and the community took forward "DBIC2"; Andrew Beverl formalized
a proposal [4].  In response to concerns about the proposal, Peter
volunteered to clarify the alternative proposal.

* Peter delivered an alternative proposal that could be summarized as
"Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X",
where at this time the plan appears to be "kickstart a DBIx::Class
fork free of community bias". [5]

Unfortunately for the community's deliberations, Peter has
consistently provided minimal details on his plans, particularly
regarding succession should he no longer be able to or wish to
continue development.  After Andrew Beverl's proposal, Peter said he
would clarify by Nov 1 [6].  This target date then slipped to Nov 5
[7], was pushed back again on Nov 7 [8], and pushed again to Nov 17 or
else Thanksgiving [9].  On November 10, in the middle of this sequence
of delays, I started a private email thread with Peter asking if there
was anything I could do to help him formalize his proposal, but the
thread stalled on the Nov 14.  On November 26, I received a separate
private email telling me I could set a deadline of Dec 1, if needed
[10].  In our continuation of the stalled thread at that point, Peter
and I briefly discussed what ultimately became his final proposal of
Dec 3.

I think some details in those private emails are relevant to the
decisions at hand, so now that Peter has released his proposal and
because Peter originally insisted that all discussions about DBIC be
public anyway, I am now posting the content of that private email
thread in full. [11]

Specifically, I want to call attention to Peter's description of the
future of DBIC as "two forks developed in parallel, by noncooperating,
openly adversarial teams" which I think is more indicative of the
stakes and situation than the simpler question of "where does the
DBIx::Class namespace point".  What an adversarial fork means for the
future of the repository, mailing list, bug trackers, module
ecosystem, and community itself, etc. is undefined and community
members may wish to consider that in their decision process.

Given Peter's stated intent to launch a "fork free of community bias",
it's clear there is no governance alternative for the community on the
table.  Matt's original proposal had enough support to be adopted
outright [12], has been amended with generally good feedback, and has
provisions for future self amendment.  I consider it operative in its
amended form as soon as this vote is concluded, with the only missing
piece being what specific namespaces it governs.

The question thus comes down to whether the community feels "official"
DBIC is best developed going forward by a self-governed community or
by a single individual with absolute control (with both the good and
ill that comes of that).  The community may wish to consider the track
record and personalities of everyone involved for both scenarios in
weighing a decision.

As there has been more than enough time spent on these topics and/or
waiting for clarification already, and since the options on the table
aren't materially altered from their earlier forms, I don't believe
further discussion, debate or new alternatives will provide better or
clearer 

Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Hartmaier Alexander]

Proposal A

Best regards, Alex

On 2016-12-05 07:15, David Golden wrote:
Thank you to everyone who has been participating in or just reading the various 
governance discussions since my initial email to the DBIC list of Oct 3. [1]

It's time to bring this to a conclusion.

Peter suggests that the question to consider is merely which fork gets the 
"DBIx::Class" namespace indexed on CPAN.  While that may be all he cares about, 
I feel it trivializes the discussions the community has been having and the decision the 
community is being asked to make.

Without restating all the history to date, here are the facts of the case that 
I think are most relevant to consider in understanding the proposals at hand:

* Peter's original plan that started the dispute could be summarized as "Peter takes sole 
control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X", where at that time the plan appeared to be 
"freeze and park permissions with an unknown owner".

* The dispute process clearly indicated that Peter didn't have the support of 
existing maintainers or the community for such a plan sufficient to disregard 
his prior permissions agreement with Matt.

* Matt proposed a mechanism for the community to self-govern the DBIC namespace 
and development, sharing power between maintainers and the mailing list. 
(Revised proposal is linked as [2])

* Peter revealed that his new employment situation allows him to continue 
development. [3]

* Given Peter's track record and renewed availability, some in the community wanted to 
see an alternative proposal where Peter continued DBIC and the community took forward 
"DBIC2"; Andrew Beverl formalized a proposal [4].  In response to concerns 
about the proposal, Peter volunteered to clarify the alternative proposal.

* Peter delivered an alternative proposal that could be summarized as "Peter takes sole 
control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X", where at this time the plan appears to be 
"kickstart a DBIx::Class fork free of community bias". [5]

Unfortunately for the community's deliberations, Peter has consistently 
provided minimal details on his plans, particularly regarding succession should 
he no longer be able to or wish to continue development.  After Andrew Beverl's 
proposal, Peter said he would clarify by Nov 1 [6].  This target date then 
slipped to Nov 5 [7], was pushed back again on Nov 7 [8], and pushed again to 
Nov 17 or else Thanksgiving [9].  On November 10, in the middle of this 
sequence of delays, I started a private email thread with Peter asking if there 
was anything I could do to help him formalize his proposal, but the thread 
stalled on the Nov 14.  On November 26, I received a separate private email 
telling me I could set a deadline of Dec 1, if needed [10].  In our 
continuation of the stalled thread at that point, Peter and I briefly discussed 
what ultimately became his final proposal of Dec 3.

I think some details in those private emails are relevant to the decisions at 
hand, so now that Peter has released his proposal and because Peter originally 
insisted that all discussions about DBIC be public anyway, I am now posting the 
content of that private email thread in full. [11]

Specifically, I want to call attention to Peter's description of the future of DBIC as "two 
forks developed in parallel, by noncooperating, openly adversarial teams" which I think is 
more indicative of the stakes and situation than the simpler question of "where does the 
DBIx::Class namespace point".  What an adversarial fork means for the future of the 
repository, mailing list, bug trackers, module ecosystem, and community itself, etc. is undefined 
and community members may wish to consider that in their decision process.

Given Peter's stated intent to launch a "fork free of community bias", it's 
clear there is no governance alternative for the community on the table.  Matt's original 
proposal had enough support to be adopted outright [12], has been amended with generally 
good feedback, and has provisions for future self amendment.  I consider it operative in 
its amended form as soon as this vote is concluded, with the only missing piece being 
what specific namespaces it governs.

The question thus comes down to whether the community feels "official" DBIC is 
best developed going forward by a self-governed community or by a single individual with 
absolute control (with both the good and ill that comes of that).  The community may wish 
to consider the track record and personalities of everyone involved for both scenarios in 
weighing a decision.

As there has been more than enough time spent on these topics and/or waiting 
for clarification already, and since the options on the table aren't materially 
altered from their earlier forms, I don't believe further discussion, debate or 
new alternatives will provide better or clearer options for the future of DBIC. 
 It is time for this dispute to be resolved so everyone can move forward.

Therefore, I 

Re: [Dbix-class] ??? VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ???

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:15:04AM -0500, David Golden wrote:

> Therefore, I submit to the list the following two proposals:
>
> * PROPOSAL A: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related namespaces
> shall be managed under the amended DBIC community governance structure
> proposed by Matt Trout ...
>
> * PROPOSAL B: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related namespaces
> shall be managed solely by Peter Ribasushi ...

I vote for PROPOSAL A.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

All children should be aptitude-tested at an early age and,
if their main or only aptitude is for marketing, drowned.

___
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk

Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[Erik Colson]

Proposal B
-- 
erik colson

___
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk