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
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
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.
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
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
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:
>
>
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo