Re: [Dbix-class] Alternative proposals proposal
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 for PAUSE administrators to choose what happens next and "push the button" and so on indicate that you acknowledge you don't have the support you thought you did that would justify your claim of moral authority to enact your plan. Thus, through your own actions – not that of PAUSE administrators – the dispute is resolved. A resolution within the community – arrived at via discussion – is what the PAUSE administrators felt would be the best way to resolve this dispute. Because you initially refused to recognize the dispute, refused to discuss your plans with your fellow maintainers or community, and seemed resolute on acting in secret without consultation, we prohibited you from proceeding in such a unilateral fashion so as to force discussion to occur. We believe the subsequent discussion and resolution within the community rather than by external fiat is ample evidence of the wisdom of that approach. David -- David Golden Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg ___ 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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 admins articulated that they will not allow me to exercise my right of FIRSTCOME[1], which led to the following[2]: * I strongly disagree with the PAUSE admins interpretation of my ownership of this project, and I strongly believe a procedural overstepping has taken place. However, the triggered discussion indicates my leadership is not without controversy, and therefore as indicated earlier[7], I am forfeiting my right to select the next FIRSTCOME. As it was not immediately obvious that I am acting under duress, I wrote the following clarification[3] I am really unhappy that me choosing to not fight for my rights is seen as abdication, instead of being an attempt to prevent the project suffering more damage than it already has. Then you turn around and say: ... (b) that PAUSE admins strip him of his authority With the dispute resolved, (b) would be – in your words and the words of others – unprecedented. The dispute has *not* been resolved. The PAUSE admins simply pushed one of the disputing parties out. Your suggestion that "we have never stripped an author of their authority" doesn't match your actions over the past couple weeks. Have the integrity to own up to creating the very precedent you claim never happened. Cheers [1] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/10/msg96181.html [2] http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/012265.html [3] http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/012274.html ___ 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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. We – the PAUSE admins – are not owners, nor obligated to institute balance. We are involved to mediate a dispute: your claim of moral authority versus your prior agreement with Matt about a revocable transfer of primary permissions. We said that we felt that the maintainers – and more broadly the DBIC community – are better informed to make this decision and hoped it could be resolved within the community. You suggested we take it to the community via the DBIC mailing list. We did. 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. We continue to be involved for three reasons: (a) because you feel it would be against your conscience to "push the button" to carry out the eventual wishes of the community (b) because we believe we should continue to encourage dialog to ensure all voices are represented (c) because we can be a conduit for voices that aren't able to speak openly on the mailing list However, the responsibility for a "balanced state" rests with the maintainers and community, as it always has. We can encourage voices to assist in arriving at balance, but have no obligation nor responsibility to make it happen. > David, the fact that you equate "not giving a key" with "symbolic value" > is deeply troubling to me, on both personal and administrative level. Your > question essentially reads "but mst will still try to be involved, why not > just let him play". > > Given that the community did not support your plan to oust other maintainers, freeze the project, and hand DBIC over to an unknown caretaker, your claim of moral authority taking precedence over your prior agreement with Matt does not hold up. That means Matt is free – should he choose – to exercise his right to resume primary permissions. He hasn't (yet) done so – instead he has suggested revitalizing group governance rather than continuing under his sole governance. You appear to be suggesting something else, either: (a) that Matt voluntarily give up his authority (b) that PAUSE admins strip him of his authority With the dispute resolved, (b) would be – in your words and the words of others – unprecedented. The PAUSE administrators are not going to interfere in the governance decisions of the DBIC community beyond encouraging participation and "pushing the button" so you don't have to. For (a) to be successful, you need to make a case either to Matt directly or to the community to make a case to Matt for why his ceding authority is in the best interests of the project. This is why I – speaking personally – suggested you elaborate. I appreciate that you did articulate a mechanism: Your view that not having Matt in the core increases the friction for new work being included in DBIC itself rather in separate namespaces. Having encouraged you to specifics, I will leave assessment of the mechanism to the community. Regards, David -- David Golden Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg ___ 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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 didn't have PAUSE permissions, I don't think he would disappear from the project. I think he would – if he desired – continue to advocate for his points of view, much as he does in many other parts of the Perl ecosystem where he doesn't have administrative authority. Therefore, I'd like to understand whether you think Matt not being on the core team has merely symbolic power, or whether you think it has a tangible effect and, if so, how you see that working in practice? It is exactly *because* mst will continue advocating his amply documented "stable but just about" vision, and because of how (inconsistently) influential he is within the general public, some sort of balance tending towards the status quo needs to be introduced. It is the responsibility of the current interim project owners (the PAUSE admins) to institute this balanced state. On the question of mechanism: it would be logical that when *all* work *has* to go through a set of eyes predominantly *not* interested in exciting new stuff, the friction will increase the chances of said work happening where it belongs: in separate opt-in namespaces. David, the fact that you equate "not giving a key" with "symbolic value" is deeply troubling to me, on both personal and administrative level. Your question essentially reads "but mst will still try to be involved, why not just let him play". Imagine where we would have been with Test::Builder today if Exodist was just a chap with badly implemented ideas trying to push them to a wider audience. If it is still unclear why Matt specifically: one has to start somewhere - why not with the disproportionally largest elephant in the room. ___ 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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 me stress that I have a couple questions for you in my personal capacity, that I think would inform the discussion and that you are free to ignore – though I hope you won't. (And in the future, please take that statement above as read if I preface my remarks with 'speaking personally' or the like). 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 didn't have PAUSE permissions, I don't think he would disappear from the project. I think he would – if he desired – continue to advocate for his points of view, much as he does in many other parts of the Perl ecosystem where he doesn't have administrative authority. Therefore, I'd like to understand whether you think Matt not being on the core team has merely symbolic power, or whether you think it has a tangible effect and, if so, how you see that working in practice? Personally, I don't see how it could have anything beyond symbolic value, so given that you object to Matt's influence, I think it would be more effective to identify and advocate for the elevation of contrasting points of view for a "checks and balances" approach. To that end, I appreciate that – in proposing your own view of a possible core team you could support – you've decided to identify some people you think could play a leadership role. Irrespective of whether they are interested, I think that's a constructive step, so I thank you for being willing to do so. Regards, David -- David Golden Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg ___ 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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: > > https://metacpan.org/author/FREW > https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG > https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI HAARG said no. given our work together on Moo, I'd be happy to have him replace me on any proposal I'm making, if you can talk him into saying yes. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team. ___ 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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 https://metacpan.org/author/FLORA https://metacpan.org/author/GRODITI https://metacpan.org/author/HDP https://metacpan.org/author/MSTROUT https://metacpan.org/author/PERIGRIN https://metacpan.org/author/SARTAK https://metacpan.org/author/STEVAN or Catalyst: https://metacpan.org/author/AGRUNDMA https://metacpan.org/author/APEIRON https://metacpan.org/author/ARCANEZ https://metacpan.org/author/BOBTFISH https://metacpan.org/author/BRICAS https://metacpan.org/author/DGL https://metacpan.org/author/EDENC https://metacpan.org/author/ELLIOTT https://metacpan.org/author/ETHER https://metacpan.org/author/FLORA https://metacpan.org/author/FREW https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI https://metacpan.org/author/JJNAPIORK https://metacpan.org/author/JROCKWAY https://metacpan.org/author/MITHALDU https://metacpan.org/author/MRAMBERG https://metacpan.org/author/MSTROUT https://metacpan.org/author/PHAYLON https://metacpan.org/author/RIBASUSHI https://metacpan.org/author/SSCAFFIDI https://metacpan.org/author/VANSTYN https://metacpan.org/author/WSHELDAHL Both of these projects have some authors who contribute frequently, and some less frequently, but in both cases it is reassuring to know that there are additional people waiting in the wings to step in should a crisis occur (either of the "she's off her meds" sort or "she was hit by a bus" sort). Further, I would point out that Matt is comaint of both of these projects, and has **added to** the stability of them through his presence and advice, not detracted from it. Besides, Matt has held comaint on DBIx::Class itself all this time and has not meddled with the direction set by its BDFL for years; why would this be expected to change if the leadership changed? I am baffled at how such a thing would be presumed. On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 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 below), a > team similar to that would get several +1's from me: > > https://metacpan.org/author/FREW > https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG > https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI > > If the number "5" is magical in some way, and diluting responsibility > further is desirable: destabilize it a bit more, e.g. > > https://metacpan.org/author/FREW > https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG > https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI > https://metacpan.org/author/JROBINSON > https://metacpan.org/author/SYSPETE > > 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 controlled by someone who demonstrably optimizes, and went on > record intending to continue optimizing for progress for the sake of > progress. > > > ___ > 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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 controlled by someone who > demonstrably optimizes, and went on record intending to continue > optimizing for progress for the sake of progress. I disagree that I would "fully control" such a team, but it's clear that you think less of our co-maints than I do. Anybody who has genuine concerns that I would optimise for "progress for the sake of progress" as opposed to the "impressive record of reliability" from http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/01.html is very welcome to join the outstanding questions thread. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team. ___ 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] Alternative proposals proposal
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 below), a team similar to that would get several +1's from me: https://metacpan.org/author/FREW https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI If the number "5" is magical in some way, and diluting responsibility further is desirable: destabilize it a bit more, e.g. https://metacpan.org/author/FREW https://metacpan.org/author/HAARG https://metacpan.org/author/ILMARI https://metacpan.org/author/JROBINSON https://metacpan.org/author/SYSPETE 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 controlled by someone who demonstrably optimizes, and went on record intending to continue optimizing for progress for the sake of progress. ___ 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
