Re: [Dbix-class] Fwd: Re: GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system

[Matt S Trout]

... accurate though that last email might have been, it was meant to be an
off-list reply. I'm an idiot. Oh well.

-- 
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] Fwd: Re: GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system

[Matt S Trout]

My timing sucks:

Day changed to 21 Oct 2016
07:17 -!- abraxxa [~abra...@tsa-tc-flod-1.t-systems.at] has joined #dbic-cabal
15:57 -!- abraxxa [~abra...@tsa-tc-flod-1.t-systems.at] has quit [Quit: 
  Leaving.]
15:57 < mst> abraxxa: to be completely honest, I excluded you from my proposal 
 purely on the basis that I didn't want to see a four-page ribarant 
 about your "urge for shiny new things" :)
15:57 < mst> oh for FUCK's sake, he left literally while I was typing that

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 04:44:16PM +0200, Hartmaier Alexander wrote:
> On 2016-10-19 05:58, Chris Prather wrote:
> I suck at email and this got bounced initially.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Chris Prather >
> Date: Oct 18, 2016 at 11:56 PM
> To: DBIx::Class user and developer list 
> >
> Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal 
> w/bootstrap governance system
> 
> So I'm only a interested user of DBIC. I took enough DBA classes in college 
> to make me painfully aware that I don't want to understand how DBIC does what 
> it does. I'm just very happy it does it.
> 
> I am however deeply vested in how the Perl community self-regulates, and as 
> such I've read probably more of this thread (and the related threads) than is 
> healthy for someone who really should be busy trying to find paying work. 
> That said I think this Governance Policy has merit, there are only three 
> changes I would recommend two need to be made nearly immutable at the outset 
> to be effective, one has already been proposed and can be adopted later.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The list of people with PAUSE COMAINT permissions and the list of of 
> Voting Members should always be identical. Best would be if FIRSTCOME were 
> held in trust by some DBIC account similar to how XML permissions are held 
> (https://metacpan.org/author/DAHUT), and everyone else on the VM list were 
> strictly co-maint. This might be overly complicated for what is mostly 
> symbolic reasons but it would go a long way to demonstrating the new 
> Governance.
> 
> If someone resigns from the VM then they are removed from COMAINT.
> 
> 2) Voting Members and the LAV (List aggregate Vote) have unilateral veto 
> power for any proposal. Meaning if any Voting Member or the LAV make an 
> explicit -1 to a proposal. The Proposal as it stands *in that thread* is 
> dead. It will need to be re-proposed in such a way that the vetoing member 
> either assents or abstains. This protects minority voices. My preference 
> would be to require unanimity of consent but that would IN MY OPINION simply 
> open the process up to be gamed during it's infancy.
> 
> Finally this has already been proposed but I would add my experience with the 
> Moose community.
> 
> 3) A full PROPOSAL is required to merge a topic branch into the mainline 
> release branch.
> 
> 
> 
> This is far more than I was planning on commenting but having read as much of 
> all of the relvant threads as possible I don't think that the policy *as 
> proposed* is as conservative as it should be to properly reflect the concerns 
> of all members of the community who've been involved in the conversation to 
> date.
> 
> Thanks for your time in reading my ramblings.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hoped that such regulations (like YAPC::NAs code-of-conduct) aren't 
> necessary but it seems they are... ;(
> 
> 1) and 2) sounds reasonable to me, +1.
> 
> Controlling changes to the (git) repo is imho more important than when a 
> release is made, so I'm +1 for 3).
> Master, or the per supported major version branch if we have more than one 
> some time in the future, should always be in a releasable state which has the 
> advantage that each co-maintainer can cut a release regardless if (s)he was 
> involved in the commits leading up to  the current one.
> DBIC once followed the "release early, release often" policy which encouraged 
> people to report bugs and contribute features. Not seeing a release in month 
> which fixes a minor annoyance or bug turned me off very much.
> 
> If the proposed core team and community or whoever will decide what will 
> happen wants, I'd be glad and honored to keep my co-maintainer status for 
> DBIC. I didn't step up as 'voice of stability' as I do know that my urge for 
> shiny new things would hinder me to fulfill that expectation.
> I did listen and have hopefully learned enough from mst and ribasushi in the 
> last ten years to find a middle course between adding features to core and 
> not breaking the API.
> 
> Thanks for all your efforts to make DBIC great again!
> 
> 
> *"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
> T-Systems Austria GesmbH Rennweg 97-99, 1030 Wien
> Handelsgericht Wien, FN 79340b
> *"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
> 

Re: [Dbix-class] Fwd: Re: GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system

[Hartmaier Alexander]

On 2016-10-19 05:58, Chris Prather wrote:
I suck at email and this got bounced initially.

-Chris

Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Prather >
Date: Oct 18, 2016 at 11:56 PM
To: DBIx::Class user and developer list 
>
Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap 
governance system

So I'm only a interested user of DBIC. I took enough DBA classes in college to 
make me painfully aware that I don't want to understand how DBIC does what it 
does. I'm just very happy it does it.

I am however deeply vested in how the Perl community self-regulates, and as 
such I've read probably more of this thread (and the related threads) than is 
healthy for someone who really should be busy trying to find paying work. That 
said I think this Governance Policy has merit, there are only three changes I 
would recommend two need to be made nearly immutable at the outset to be 
effective, one has already been proposed and can be adopted later.



1) The list of people with PAUSE COMAINT permissions and the list of of Voting 
Members should always be identical. Best would be if FIRSTCOME were held in 
trust by some DBIC account similar to how XML permissions are held 
(https://metacpan.org/author/DAHUT), and everyone else on the VM list were 
strictly co-maint. This might be overly complicated for what is mostly symbolic 
reasons but it would go a long way to demonstrating the new Governance.

If someone resigns from the VM then they are removed from COMAINT.

2) Voting Members and the LAV (List aggregate Vote) have unilateral veto power 
for any proposal. Meaning if any Voting Member or the LAV make an explicit -1 
to a proposal. The Proposal as it stands *in that thread* is dead. It will need 
to be re-proposed in such a way that the vetoing member either assents or 
abstains. This protects minority voices. My preference would be to require 
unanimity of consent but that would IN MY OPINION simply open the process up to 
be gamed during it's infancy.

Finally this has already been proposed but I would add my experience with the 
Moose community.

3) A full PROPOSAL is required to merge a topic branch into the mainline 
release branch.



This is far more than I was planning on commenting but having read as much of 
all of the relvant threads as possible I don't think that the policy *as 
proposed* is as conservative as it should be to properly reflect the concerns 
of all members of the community who've been involved in the conversation to 
date.

Thanks for your time in reading my ramblings.

-Chris




I'd hoped that such regulations (like YAPC::NAs code-of-conduct) aren't 
necessary but it seems they are... ;(

1) and 2) sounds reasonable to me, +1.

Controlling changes to the (git) repo is imho more important than when a 
release is made, so I'm +1 for 3).
Master, or the per supported major version branch if we have more than one some 
time in the future, should always be in a releasable state which has the 
advantage that each co-maintainer can cut a release regardless if (s)he was 
involved in the commits leading up to  the current one.
DBIC once followed the "release early, release often" policy which encouraged 
people to report bugs and contribute features. Not seeing a release in month which fixes 
a minor annoyance or bug turned me off very much.

If the proposed core team and community or whoever will decide what will happen 
wants, I'd be glad and honored to keep my co-maintainer status for DBIC. I 
didn't step up as 'voice of stability' as I do know that my urge for shiny new 
things would hinder me to fulfill that expectation.
I did listen and have hopefully learned enough from mst and ribasushi in the 
last ten years to find a middle course between adding features to core and not 
breaking the API.

Thanks for all your efforts to make DBIC great again!


*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
T-Systems Austria GesmbH Rennweg 97-99, 1030 Wien
Handelsgericht Wien, FN 79340b
*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
Notice: This e-mail contains information that is confidential and may be 
privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
delete this e-mail immediately.
*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
___
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] Fwd: Re: GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system

[Darin McBride]

On Wednesday October 19 2016 11:20:43 AM Dave Howorth wrote:
> On 2016-10-19 05:07, John SJ Anderson wrote:
> >>> From: Chris Prather 
> >>> Date: Oct 18, 2016 at 11:56 PM
> >>> To: DBIx::Class user and developer list 
> >>> Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal
> >>> w/bootstrap governance system
> >>> 
> >>> So I'm only a interested user of DBIC. I took enough DBA classes in
> >>> college to make me painfully aware that I don't want to understand how
> >>> DBIC does what it does. I'm just very happy it does it.
> >>> 
> >>> I am however deeply vested in how the Perl community self-regulates, and
> >>> as such I've read probably more of this thread (and the related
> >>> threads) than is healthy for someone who really should be busy trying
> >>> to find paying work. That said I think this Governance Policy has
> >>> merit, there are only three changes I would recommend two need to be
> >>> made nearly immutable at the outset to be effective, one has already
> >>> been proposed and can be adopted later.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 1) The list of people with PAUSE COMAINT permissions and the list of of
> >>> Voting Members should always be identical. Best would be if FIRSTCOME
> >>> were held in trust by some DBIC account similar to how XML permissions
> >>> are held (https://metacpan.org/author/DAHUT), and everyone else on the
> >>> VM list were strictly co-maint. This might be overly complicated for
> >>> what is mostly symbolic reasons but it would go a long way to
> >>> demonstrating the new Governance.
> >>> 
> >>> If someone resigns from the VM then they are removed from COMAINT.
> >>> 
> >>> 2) Voting Members and the LAV (List aggregate Vote) have unilateral veto
> >>> power for any proposal. Meaning if any Voting Member or the LAV make an
> >>> explicit -1 to a proposal. The Proposal as it stands *in that thread*
> >>> is dead. It will need to be re-proposed in such a way that the vetoing
> >>> member either assents or abstains. This protects minority voices. My
> >>> preference would be to require unanimity of consent but that would IN
> >>> MY OPINION simply open the process up to be gamed during it's infancy.
> >>> 
> >>> Finally this has already been proposed but I would add my experience
> >>> with the Moose community.
> >>> 
> >>> 3) A full PROPOSAL is required to merge a topic branch into the mainline
> >>> release branch.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > 
> > +1 to all Chris’s suggestions.
> > 
> > john.
> 
> I agree with Chris's observations too. It struck me that Matt's original
> voting proposals would mean that the community had no effect in
> practice; Chris's proposal seems to overcome that.
> 
> So +1 to Chris's suggestions
> and -1 to the original proposal as proposed.
> 
> Cheers, Dave
> 
> PS In constructing low-energy buildings it is vital to achieve an
> excellent degree of airtightness, which is not familiar to most
> builders. One way to achieve it is by nominating an 'airtightness
> champion' but that only works if the champion has the power to stop work
> and even order rework. I see a parallel.

This is no different in most fields - when you have something of utmost 
importance, you assign it to someone (or some group of people), and if things 
don't pass their review, all work halts.  We do the same thing with security 
at $work - if the security team doesn't sign off, it doesn't ship.

Also, this seems to fall in line with an earlier proposal to make the fifth 
person "compatibility minded" which then earned a rebuke that such things 
cannot be added after the fact.  However, it can - if the person in charge of 
such things has an absolute veto over shipping (in this case, a non-dev CPAN 
upload).

Chris's latter two suggestions are along the line of my own, but stricter and 
clearer, so I would add +1 to those suggestions as well.  If you want to say 
the community has a say, this puts some teeth behind it.  (Suggestion #1 I 
would abstain from voting on :) )

___
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] Fwd: Re: GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system

[John SJ Anderson]

>> From: Chris Prather 
>> Date: Oct 18, 2016 at 11:56 PM
>> To: DBIx::Class user and developer list 
>> Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal 
>> w/bootstrap governance system
>> 
>> So I'm only a interested user of DBIC. I took enough DBA classes in college 
>> to make me painfully aware that I don't want to understand how DBIC does 
>> what it does. I'm just very happy it does it.
>> 
>> I am however deeply vested in how the Perl community self-regulates, and as 
>> such I've read probably more of this thread (and the related threads) than 
>> is healthy for someone who really should be busy trying to find paying work. 
>> That said I think this Governance Policy has merit, there are only three 
>> changes I would recommend two need to be made nearly immutable at the outset 
>> to be effective, one has already been proposed and can be adopted later.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1) The list of people with PAUSE COMAINT permissions and the list of of 
>> Voting Members should always be identical. Best would be if FIRSTCOME were 
>> held in trust by some DBIC account similar to how XML permissions are held 
>> (https://metacpan.org/author/DAHUT), and everyone else on the VM list were 
>> strictly co-maint. This might be overly complicated for what is mostly 
>> symbolic reasons but it would go a long way to demonstrating the new 
>> Governance.
>> 
>> If someone resigns from the VM then they are removed from COMAINT. 
>> 
>> 2) Voting Members and the LAV (List aggregate Vote) have unilateral veto 
>> power for any proposal. Meaning if any Voting Member or the LAV make an 
>> explicit -1 to a proposal. The Proposal as it stands *in that thread* is 
>> dead. It will need to be re-proposed in such a way that the vetoing member 
>> either assents or abstains. This protects minority voices. My preference 
>> would be to require unanimity of consent but that would IN MY OPINION simply 
>> open the process up to be gamed during it's infancy.
>> 
>> Finally this has already been proposed but I would add my experience with 
>> the Moose community.
>> 
>> 3) A full PROPOSAL is required to merge a topic branch into the mainline 
>> release branch.
>> 
>>  


+1 to all Chris’s suggestions. 

john.


___
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