Re: [Cvs-dev] Help CVS Project Solicitation

[Conrad T. Pino]

> From: Cvs-dev On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser

> >CVS Project historically required substantial agreement before acting.
> 
> I sense a "and currently we do.?" here.

No, the omission of the present and future was deliberate.

The statement was made to reassure new members the old membership respects
process; whatever that may become.

> I suspect the best way forward is to, at some point in the 
> future, make a tally of who's still interested in working as 
> CVS project member, then decide, uh, I think "governance" is 
> the correct term, among them.

CVS Project historically never expels members except for cause and after
substantial deliberation.

The skills are too rare and the willing too few to gain any benefit by
blocking inactive members from resuming work on a whim.

Our history never created consensus by voting; consensus emerged by
addressing concerns until objections fade away.

Proposals made by those not committing resources for execution lose
credibility fast.

Proposals made and backed by committed resources for execution can expect
deference.

> >> But let me answer your questions.  Even if you don't like Savannah.
> >
> >Savannah opinions were said but nothing said so far is a proposal.
> 
> Indeed. With rsync-over-ssh access, I can work with Savannah, 
> although I still would certainly prefer to cut down on the 
> number of. channels (amount of mailing lists, and whatever 
> the website (which I'd have to recheck before making a 
> statement on) currently
> provides) to communicate/check.

0) No one is required to use any such facility.

1) Acting now diverts resources from the next release.

2) Experience to come may affirm value and restores avoided.

3) Most CVS Project members, we included, don't have access.

4) Those that can do such work must be sold adding to labor.

5) Those that can have CVS code experience I suggest we need.

6) Those that can tied up with administrivia is poor planning.

7) Those that can have other time commitments we must respect.

I don't oppose clear cutting; it just looks like an avoidable time sink
retarding release progress but I could be wrong; so I ask:

What value do you see from clear cutting now rather than later?

> Especially given that CVS' popular time is over, so those few 
> still interested can come to whatever we'll have at the end.

I'm sure it will be a space you will enjoy sharing.

Best regards,
Conrad T. Pino