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

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

[Thomas Klausner]

Hi!

PROPOSAL A

Greetings,
domm

PS: It seems my inital mail from Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:35:41 +0100 did not 
make it to the list (caused by some mail setup issues on my part), at 
least I did not find it here:
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-December/date.html
If my vote was received, please regard this duplicate.



-- 
#!/usr/bin/perl  http://domm.plix.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&$_.$/}

___
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 ★

[Russell Jenkins]

Proposal A


--
Russell (veryrusty) Jenkins


___
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 ★

[Toby Corkindale]

I vote: 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 ★

[Kaitlyn Parkhurst]

Proposal A

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:15 PM, 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 ★

[Charlie Garrison]

Proposal A

cng

-- 

   Charlie Garrison  
   github.com/cngarrison   metacpan.org/author/CNG

___
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 ★

[VanDerPoel, Ian]

Proposal A

From: David Golden [mailto:x...@xdg.me]
Sent: Monday, 5 December 2016 5:15 PM
To: DBIC Mailing List
Subject: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★


This message (including any attachments) is intended solely for the addressee 
named and may contain confidential and or privileged information. If you are 
not the intended recipient,please delete it and notify the sender. Views 
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not 
necessarily the views of Independent Transport Safety Regulator (ITSR). Whole 
or parts of this e-mail may be subject to copyright of ITSR or third parties. 
You should only re-transmit, distribute or use the material for commercial 
purposes if you are authorised to do so.

Please visit us http://www.transportregulator.nsw.gov.au
___
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 ★

[John Napiorkowski]

Proposal A

 

On Monday, December 5, 2016 11:15 AM, "Renvoize, Martin" 
 wrote:
 

 Proposal A

| Martin Renvoize |
| Development Manager |
| 
 |
|   |
| T: +44 (0) 1483 378728 |
| F: +44 (0) 800 756 6384 |
| E: martin.renvo...@ptfs-europe.com |
| www.ptfs-europe.com |
|   |
|  |
| 
 |
| 
 |


| Registered in the United Kingdom No. 06416372   VAT Reg No. 925 7211 30
The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential 
and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any 
dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think 
that you have received this email message in error, please email the sender at 
i...@ptfs-europe.com |



On 5 December 2016 at 16:44, Sam  wrote:

Proposal A

On 12/05/2016 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 

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

[Renvoize, Martin]

Proposal A

*Martin Renvoize*

Development Manager




*T:* +44 (0) 1483 378728

*F:* +44 (0) 800 756 6384

*E:* martin.renvo...@ptfs-europe.com

www.ptfs-europe.com







Registered in the United Kingdom No. 06416372   VAT Reg No. 925 7211 30

The information contained in this email message may be privileged,
confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in
error, please email the sender at i...@ptfs-europe.com


On 5 December 2016 at 16:44, Sam  wrote:

> Proposal A
>
>
> On 12/05/2016 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
>> 

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

[Sam]

Proposal A

On 12/05/2016 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
clearer options for the future of DBIC.  It is time for this dispute to
be resolved so everyone can move forward.

Therefore, I submit to the list the following two proposals:

* PROPOSAL A: Primary 

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

[Nigel Metheringham]

PROPOSAL A

-- 

[ Nigel Metheringham -- ni...@dotdot.it ] 
[ Ellipsis Intangible Technologies  ]
 



___
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 ★

[Mike Rylander]

Proposal A

--
Mike Rylander
 | President
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / Open Your Library
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  mi...@esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:15 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 

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

[Marc Mims]

Proposal A.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 AM Frank Carnovale 
wrote:

> Proposal A.
>
> On 5 December 2016 at 06:15, 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 

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

[Frank Carnovale]

Proposal A.

On 5 December 2016 at 06:15, 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 ★

[Jon Allen (JJ)]

Proposal A

JJ Allen
Software Delivery Manager



Drury House
Drury Lane
Rugby
CV21 3DE
T: 01788 298 411
M: 07747 63 23 43
E: j...@opusvl.com
W: www.opusvl.com 
___
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 ★

[Chase Whitener]

Proposal A.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Roberto Henriquez
 wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:15:04 -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.  Decisions about the
>> future development of the project, including but not limited to
>> stability policy, new development, branching and freezing shall be
>> governed by the community under the same terms.  The community will
>> choose whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that
>> name or a separate name.  Peter will choose whether/how to fork DBIC
>> to a new namespace for independent development.
>>
>> * PROPOSAL B: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related
>> namespaces shall be managed solely by Peter Ribasushi until he
>> transfers it to another of his choosing or appears permanently
>> incommunicado (whether by choice, accident or death).Decisions
>> about the future development of the project, including but not
>> limited to stability policy, new development, branching and freezing
>> shall be made at Peter's sole discretion.  Peter will choose
>> whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that or a
>> separate name.  The community, under the governance proposal, will
>> choose whether/how to fork DBIC to a new namespace for independent
>> development.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Voting will close 72 hours after this email is sent.
>>
>> I will tally and announce results shortly thereafter.  I will be sole
>> arbiter of any voting irregularities.  Once announced, I will transfer
>> namespace permissions accordingly and consider the matter resolved.
>>
>
> Proposal A
>
> --
> Roberto Henríquez Laurent
> robe...@freekeylabs.com
>
> ___
> 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

___
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 ★

[Roberto Henriquez]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:15:04 -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.  Decisions about the
> future development of the project, including but not limited to
> stability policy, new development, branching and freezing shall be
> governed by the community under the same terms.  The community will
> choose whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that
> name or a separate name.  Peter will choose whether/how to fork DBIC
> to a new namespace for independent development.
> 
> * PROPOSAL B: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related
> namespaces shall be managed solely by Peter Ribasushi until he
> transfers it to another of his choosing or appears permanently
> incommunicado (whether by choice, accident or death).Decisions
> about the future development of the project, including but not
> limited to stability policy, new development, branching and freezing
> shall be made at Peter's sole discretion.  Peter will choose
> whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that or a
> separate name.  The community, under the governance proposal, will
> choose whether/how to fork DBIC to a new namespace for independent
> development.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Voting will close 72 hours after this email is sent.
> 
> I will tally and announce results shortly thereafter.  I will be sole
> arbiter of any voting irregularities.  Once announced, I will transfer
> namespace permissions accordingly and consider the matter resolved.
> 

Proposal A

-- 
Roberto Henríquez Laurent
robe...@freekeylabs.com

___
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 ★

[Michele Beltrame]

Hi!

Proposal A.

Cheers,
Michele.

-- 
Michele Beltrame
http://www.italpro.net/ - m...@italpro.net
Skype: arthas77 - Twitter: _arthas

___
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 ★

[James E Keenan]

On 12/05/2016 01:15 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]



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 ★

[Aaron Trevena]

On 5 December 2016 at 06:15, 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.  Decisions about the future development of the
> project, including but not limited to stability policy, new development,
> branching and freezing shall be governed by the community under the same
> terms.  The community will choose whether/how to continue active development
> of DBIC under that name or a separate name.  Peter will choose whether/how
> to fork DBIC to a new namespace for independent development.

A vote for Proposal A from me please.

Thanks,

A

-- 
Aaron J Trevena, BSc Hons
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk
LAMP System Integration, Development and Consulting

___
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 ★

[Andrew Beverley]

Abstain

___
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 ★

[Salve J Nilsen]

Proposal A

David Golden said:


Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 07:15:04
From: David Golden <x...@xdg.me>
Reply-To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
To: DBIC Mailing List <dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
Subject: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

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 al

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

[Jorge Gonzalez]

Proposal A.

-- 
Jorge González Villalonga
Ingeniero de Sistemas / Systems Engineer
Red Hat Certified Engineer #140-183-666
Móvil / Cell: (+34) 672 173 200

-Original Message-
From: Matthias Zeichmann <matthias.zeichm...@gmail.com>
To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
Sent: lun., 05 dic. 2016 14:14
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

Proposal A

Am 05.12.2016 08:10 schrieb "Pedro Melo" <m...@simplicidade.org>:

> Proposal A
>
>
>
> *From: *David Golden <x...@xdg.me>
> *Reply-To: *"DBIx::Class user and developer list" <
> dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
> *Date: *Monday 5 December 2016 at 06:15
> *To: *DBIC Mailing List <dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
> *Subject: *[Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control
> ★
>
>
>
> 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
&g

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

[David Stevenson]

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 ★

[Lianna Eeftinck]

Proposal A

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:26 AM Colin Newell  wrote:

> Proposal A
>
>
> Colin.
>
> ___
> 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
>
___
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 ★

[Paul Mooney]

I vote for Proposal A

On 05.12.2016 06:15, 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 submit to the list the following two proposals:

* PROPOSAL 

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

[Sam Kington]

> 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.

Sam
-- 
Website: http://www.illuminated.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 ★

[David Precious]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:15:04 -0500
David Golden  wrote:
> It's time to bring this to a conclusion.

Amen :)

> 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 gets my vote.

Thank you for all your work, David.

___
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 ★

[Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker]

I vote for Proposal A

David Golden  writes:

> 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 

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

[Darren Duncan]

I choose Proposal A. -- Darren Duncan

On 2016-12-04 10:15 PM, David Golden wrote:

* PROPOSAL A: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related namespaces shall
be managed under the amended DBIC community governance structure proposed by
Matt Trout.  Decisions about the future development of the project, including
but not limited to stability policy, new development, branching and freezing
shall be governed by the community under the same terms.  The community will
choose whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that name or a
separate name.  Peter will choose whether/how to fork DBIC to a new namespace
for independent development.



___
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 ★

[Patrick Meidl]

Proposal A

-- 
Patrick Meidl, Mag.
Senior Expert Software Engineering

IST - Institute of Science and Technology Austria
Am Campus 1
A-3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria

R I21.EG.115 (Building West, BT01)
T +43 2243 9000 1313
E pme...@ist.ac.at
W https://icp.ist.ac.at/search/users/pmeidl



___
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 ★

[Leo Lapworth]

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 ★

[Kaare Rasmussen]

Proposal A

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, 

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

[Stefan Hornburg (Racke)]

Proposal A

On 12/05/2016 07:15 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 

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

[David Dorward]

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 ★

[Dave Cross]

PROPOSAL A


On 05/12/16 06:15, 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 submit to the list the following two proposals:

* PROPOSAL A: Primary 

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

[Chisel]

Proposal A

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, 07:32 Richard Newsham,  wrote:

> Proposal A
>
> On 05/12/16 06:15, 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, 

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

[Richard Newsham]

Proposal A


On 05/12/16 06:15, 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 ★

[Matthias Zeichmann]

Proposal A

Am 05.12.2016 08:10 schrieb "Pedro Melo" <m...@simplicidade.org>:

> Proposal A
>
>
>
> *From: *David Golden <x...@xdg.me>
> *Reply-To: *"DBIx::Class user and developer list" <
> dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
> *Date: *Monday 5 December 2016 at 06:15
> *To: *DBIC Mailing List <dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
> *Subject: *[Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control
> ★
>
>
>
> 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
>

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

[Pedro Melo]

Proposal A

From: David Golden <x...@xdg.me>
Reply-To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list" <dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
Date: Monday 5 December 2016 at 06:15
To: DBIC Mailing List <dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk>
Subject: [Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

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/

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

[David Golden]

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 submit to the list the following two proposals:

* PROPOSAL A: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related namespaces
shall