Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:23:36PM +0100, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > On 11/02/2016 11:53 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > >I will publish a to-the-point workable proposal by the end > >of this week. > > > > Apologies for the delay yet again. Recent emails made articulating > my point more difficult, so

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 11/02/2016 11:53 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: I will publish a to-the-point workable proposal by the end of this week. Apologies for the delay yet again. Recent emails made articulating my point more difficult, so I am still thinking on how to properly respond. There are too many

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

All authors ARE copyright holders, unless they expressly disclaim or transfer said rights, which isn't usually the case with CPAN modules. Due to all of the copyright holders licensing their contributions under an open source license, anyone is legally empowered to create a fork. It is

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

I find it funny that people are discussing forking. If there are so many that want a fork why hasn't someone already done it? It seems most forget that DBIC is open source software. The license doesn't hinder anyone from forking. The license [1] says on the first two lines: DBIx::Class is

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

I have a distinct feeling that this discussion is going deja vu all over again, but from my point of view I vote:- +1 Matt's proposal (new project team) -1 to forking -- [ Nigel Metheringham -- ni...@dotdot.it ] [ Ellipsis Intangible Technologies

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:08:39PM -0600, Darin McBride wrote: > Yes, we see JSON, JSON::XS, JSON::PP all with a single JSON interface, and > magic happening under the covers. However, because, in theory, all of these > will provide *exactly the same functionality* and interfaces, only a >

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Wednesday November 2 2016 11:38:35 PM Matt S Trout wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:32:31PM -0600, Darin McBride wrote: > > On Monday October 31 2016 11:22:07 AM Andrew Beverley wrote: > > > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > > > > Otherwise, I would

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:32:31PM -0600, Darin McBride wrote: > On Monday October 31 2016 11:22:07 AM Andrew Beverley wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > > > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > > > proposal, > > > >

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Monday October 31 2016 11:22:07 AM Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > > proposal, > > TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the >

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 2016-11-02 3:53 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: On 10/31/2016 02:40 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: Same here (wrt not wanting to re-live this situation again). I will respond to the above points around midnight UTC ( ~11h from now ). Apologies for my silence. The combination of a time-zone shift

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On November 2, 2016 at 7:02:46 AM, Dave Cross (d...@dave.org.uk) wrote: > > Mee too. > > +1 Matt's proposal (new project team) > -1 Andrew's proposal (forking) +1 (new project team) -1 (forking) -- Wallace Reis ___ List:

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 11/02/2016 10:11 AM, Stefan Hornburg (Racke) wrote: > On 11/02/2016 10:07 AM, Paul Mooney wrote: >> On 02.11.2016 09:02, Dave Cross wrote: >>> Quoting Matthias Zeichmann : >>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Charlie Garrison wrote:

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

>From me, it's a +1 to Matt's proposal (new project team) and -1 to forking - I don't want to see the current DBIx::Class languishing, and I think it's something far more valuable to be managed by a team. As much as I respect riba for all the work he's put in, his recent behaviour concerns me

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 10/31/2016 02:40 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: Same here (wrt not wanting to re-live this situation again). I will respond to the above points around midnight UTC ( ~11h from now ). Apologies for my silence. The combination of a time-zone shift with an unusually early day-start leaves me

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 02.11.2016 09:02, Dave Cross wrote: Quoting Matthias Zeichmann : On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Charlie Garrison wrote: On 1 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Thomas Klausner wrote: > I think a fork will not work. The "old" DBIC will stagnate,

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

Quoting Matthias Zeichmann : On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Charlie Garrison wrote: On 1 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Thomas Klausner wrote: > I think a fork will not work. The "old" DBIC will stagnate, the "new" > will not gain traction.

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Charlie Garrison wrote: > On 1 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Thomas Klausner wrote: > > > I think a fork will not work. The "old" DBIC will stagnate, the "new" > > will not gain traction. Everybody loses. > > Agreed. Another, > same here -1 for

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 1 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Thomas Klausner wrote: > I think a fork will not work. The "old" DBIC will stagnate, the "new" > will not gain traction. Everybody loses. Agreed. Another, -1 Charlie -- Charlie Garrison github.com/cngarrison metacpan.org/author/CNG

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

Totally agree with Ashley there, could not have said it better myself "Ashley Pond V" wrote: > > +1 for the fork. It's the only way to eat our cake and have it; > affording different lines of development and culture without friction > and strife. ___

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

+1 for the fork. It's the only way to eat our cake and have it; affording different lines of development and culture without friction and strife. Since very few, if any, of you were here at the beginning, you probably don't know that this is essentially how DBIx::Class was born; as an indirect

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

Hi! On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:18:13AM -0400, James E Keenan wrote: > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > > > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > > > proposal, > > > > TBH, I

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

+1 for the fork On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > My current thought is that a fork may be the best solution in the short > term, with the following clarifications or amendments. > > 1. Peter Rabbitson would have the exclusive PAUSE permissions to

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

>On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout < m...@shadowcat.co.uk > wrote: >> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >> proposal, > >TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the >results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

My current thought is that a fork may be the best solution in the short term, with the following clarifications or amendments. 1. Peter Rabbitson would have the exclusive PAUSE permissions to the DBIx::Class namespace and would continue to perform releases of his work on it as he wanted to

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:22:32 -0400 David Golden wrote: > Please read the section entitled "=== Future Plans" in this message > from Peter: > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/10/msg96174.html > > What I suggested was not a hypothetical "train-smash" intended to >

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden wrote: > > So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant > > Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute. > > > > I.e. he could – on

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

+1 On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:22:07AM +, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > > proposal, > > TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the >

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 31 October 2016 at 12:18, James E Keenan wrote: > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: >> >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: >>> >>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >>> proposal, >> >> >> TBH, I

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

I am in favor of Andy's proposal (forking). My current understanding is there are developers interested in working in both directions, and this proposal permits that to happen. If the projects diverge, so be it. If one ceases to be actively maintained, so be it. This is not unusual in OSS or

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:18:59 Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden wrote: > > So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant > > Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute. > > > > I.e. he could – on

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden wrote: > So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant > Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute. > > I.e. he could – on arbitrary day N after your proposal is adopted – > merge his remaining work, transfer

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > > Could you please clarify your proposal with details on that front and > > what is to happen should Peter be unable or unwilling to continue > > working on DBIC? > > It would be no different to any other module.

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:39:29 -0400 David Golden wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > > > - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace > > > > > Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other > maintainers relinquished

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 10/31/2016 01:39 PM, David Golden wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley > wrote: - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other maintainers relinquished their claims

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

-1 from me, too. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > James E Keenan writes: > >> On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: Otherwise, I

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 31 October 2016 at 11:22, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: >> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >> proposal, > > TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the >

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, Oct 31 2016, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > James E Keenan writes: > > > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > >>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

James E Keenan writes: > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: >>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full >>> proposal, >> >> TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace > > Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other maintainers relinquished their claims to the DBIC namespace [1]. Could you please clarify your proposal with

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full proposal, TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the results[1]. I was merely bringing

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote: > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full > proposal, TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier suggestions[2], which

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Matt S Trout wrote: > As such, I petition the PAUSE administration to leave things alone while > the > community sorts things out > > Sure. We've always maintained that there was no rush and that discussion was the best course of action. I

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

(bcced again to the modules list) On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 08:43:03AM +, Andrew Beverley wrote: > Given that there was no formal vote, I think this is a somewhat hasty > and unfair conclusion. It's a bit like having an election with only one > party, having people vote, and then mentioning a

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

>Given that there was no formal vote, I think this is a somewhat hasty >and unfair conclusion. It's a bit like having an election with only one >party, having people vote, and then mentioning a second party later >once the election's finished. I personally was just about to vote in >favour of the

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On 30 Oct 2016, at 19:43, Andrew Beverley wrote: > Personally I would like to see a straightforward "A vs B" vote. Only > then will I consider this a fair decision. +1 -- Charlie Garrison github.com/cngarrison metacpan.org/author/CNG

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 20:47:20 -0400 David Golden wrote: > I'm very pleased to see how the DBIC community has engaged in honest > discussion about self-governance. It's been a long road, but one > that I think will serve the community well going forward. > > I'll make the changes in

Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Matt S Trout wrote: > As such, I hereby call upon the PAUSE administration to adjust the > permissions > for all namespaces within the DBIx::Class distribution in accordance with: > >