Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-17 Thread David Golden
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > The dispute has *not* been resolved. The PAUSE admins simply pushed one of > the disputing parties out. > > Peter, your choice of words like "forfeit" and "not the right person to captain this ship" and your request

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-17 Thread Peter Rabbitson
On 10/17/2016 05:10 AM, David Golden wrote: In the face of opposition to the minimal details of your plan, you acknowledged that you didn't have the community support you thought and "forfeited" (in your words) your claim. This is a misrepresentation of the events that took place. The PAUSE

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-16 Thread David Golden
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > It is the responsibility of the current interim project owners (the PAUSE > admins) to institute this balanced state. > > You seem determined to invent a narrative that suits your purpose or salves your conscience.

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-16 Thread Peter Rabbitson
On 10/14/2016 08:48 AM, David Golden wrote: So, speaking personally, I understand clearly that you object to Matt being part of a core team, but I'd like to understand the *mechanism* by which you think that will change the evolution of DBIC. Even if Matt were not on a core team, or even if he

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-14 Thread David Golden
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This is > entirely false. > Hi, Peter. Since in another thread you made it clear you interpret even my polite requests as the demands of authority, let

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-13 Thread Matt S Trout
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:42:12PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This > is entirely false. > > As an *EXAMPLE* (I have not spoken to either of the poor saps > below), a team similar to that would get several +1's from me: > >

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-13 Thread Karen Etheridge
I don't see how more people would either "dilute responsibility" nor destabilize the team. For example, consider the people who hold comaint on the Moose namespace: https://metacpan.org/author/DOY https://metacpan.org/author/DROLSKY https://metacpan.org/author/ETHER

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-13 Thread Matt S Trout
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:42:12PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > As a community you seem to want prioritization of stability. Then > why aren't you clamoring for a team that *mostly* leans towards > stability *naturally*? I do not understand why settle for an > illusion of a working group fully

Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-13 Thread Darren Duncan
I support either of these team proposals, assuming the prospective members agree. -- Darren Duncan On 2016-10-13 1:42 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This is entirely false. As an *EXAMPLE* (I have not spoken to either of the poor saps

[Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal

2016-10-13 Thread Peter Rabbitson
It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This is entirely false. As an *EXAMPLE* (I have not spoken to either of the poor saps below), a team similar to that would get several +1's from me: https://metacpan.org/author/FREW https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG