Mailing List Archive

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:10:35 -1000
Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> wrote:

> I do not see the decision regarding RT documented in
> steering committe minutes. Appearing somewhere on a issues
> thread on github (if this is the case) does not, to me
> constitute public discussion, unless links to these threads
> appear on p5p.

To be clear here: the proposed shutdown of rt.cpan.org is nothing to do
with perl5-porters. The entire thing is maintained by one person, who
decided back in December to announce it would be turned off. That is
something entirely outside the remit of either p5p or the steering
committee.

In fact I am having trouble understanding whose remit it really does
fall under... Who is the higher power we can appeal to? Does one exist?

> I consider the handling of rt.cpan.org to be a litmus test
> and opportunity for the Steering Committee to
> handle an issue important to the wellbeing of our community.

Yes - that part I could agree with.

I mentioned it here in order to draw attention to it as I felt hardly
anyone was even aware, and to see if any of the porters (individually
or collectively) wished to make a public statement about their thoughts
on such.

--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans

leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/

On 1/21/21 11:10 AM, Joel Roth wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 03:10:48PM -0800, Karen Etheridge wrote:
>> Yes, am gravely concerned! I tried to raise this on committee (
>> https://perl.topicbox.com/groups/infrastructure/Te92859202f730470-M0ec0cd211f9dcd89a580957c/project-rt-cpan-org-static-hosting)
>> but didn't get anywhere. The best option at all would be to cancel the
>> decommissioning (or at least postpone to a much more reasonable timeline),
>> but I have been unable to even determine the motivations behind the
>> decision or identify what would be involved in keeping the service up.
>>
>> I want to be clear that it is totally acceptable for a volunteer to decide
>> that they can't or won't have the time/energy/enthusiasm to continue a
>> task. Volunteer effort is greatly appreciated while it is there, but it
>> cannot be presumed to be provided in perpetuity. However, I find it greatly
>> distressing that the option for new volunteer(s) to step in and take over
>> is not being permitted. This is not something that can or should be decided
>> unilaterally.
> I'd like to underscore this last point.
>
> There has been a great deal of debate and extensive work on
> creating a system for governance of future development
> around the Perl language.
>
> How is it, then, that despite all this discussion,
> a decision that represents a huge change to our community
> infrastructure has been made with no one taking explicit
> responsibility (at least in the official announcement[1])
> and so far in the discussion here on p5p?
>
> I do not see the decision regarding RT documented in
> steering committe minutes. Appearing somewhere on a issues
> thread on github (if this is the case) does not, to me
> constitute public discussion, unless links to these threads
> appear on p5p.
>
> The community is being asked to trust the new steering
> committee and governance model, to be reassured that
> concerns such as those raised persistently by Yuki Kimoto[2]
> about arbitrary changes imposed from above lack merit, given
> that those who truly care about the future of Perl are
> making decisions.


You are gravely mistaken in conflating PSC, the Perl Core (and both as
the new governance model) with this decision, which was done by a
separate party, unrelated to governance, specifically *not* under the
purview of the new governance (or the old, as a matter of fact), and was
decided on by a private, dedicated volunteer prior to the governance.


In other words, these have *zero* to do with each other. The new Perl
governance model is in charge of this as much as we are in charge of a
single, dedicated volunteer CPAN Testers smoker deciding to run smoke tests.


To summarize in bullet points:


* The old governance was not in charge of this

* The new governance is *clearly* not in charge of this (per the
official document on governance)

* The decision was done before the new governance

* This is a system maintained by volunteers who made the decision


>
> I consider the handling of rt.cpan.org to be a litmus test
> and opportunity for the Steering Committee to
> handle an issue important to the wellbeing of our community.


This topic was raised in the last PSC meeting (notes forthcoming) but
due to time constraints by other topic (we were far overtime), we had to
punt this to the next meeting.


Having said that, let me emphasize: This isn't our system, we are not in
charge of it, we do not own it, we cannot tell a volunteer on a system
we are not in charge of what do to. Most importantly, PSC is
specifically, by charter, *not* in charge of infrastructure.


Having said this "having said that", we are interested in seeing what we
can do and we will.

Thank you Sawyer (and Paul) for replying. I had misunderstood
the situation. And thanks to all volunteering to help
find solutions.

Joel

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 04:56:35PM +0100, Sawyer X wrote:
>
> On 1/21/21 11:10 AM, Joel Roth wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 03:10:48PM -0800, Karen Etheridge wrote:
> > > Yes, am gravely concerned! I tried to raise this on committee (
> > > https://perl.topicbox.com/groups/infrastructure/Te92859202f730470-M0ec0cd211f9dcd89a580957c/project-rt-cpan-org-static-hosting)
> > > but didn't get anywhere. The best option at all would be to cancel the
> > > decommissioning (or at least postpone to a much more reasonable timeline),
> > > but I have been unable to even determine the motivations behind the
> > > decision or identify what would be involved in keeping the service up.
> > >
> > > I want to be clear that it is totally acceptable for a volunteer to decide
> > > that they can't or won't have the time/energy/enthusiasm to continue a
> > > task. Volunteer effort is greatly appreciated while it is there, but it
> > > cannot be presumed to be provided in perpetuity. However, I find it greatly
> > > distressing that the option for new volunteer(s) to step in and take over
> > > is not being permitted. This is not something that can or should be decided
> > > unilaterally.
> > I'd like to underscore this last point.
> >
> > There has been a great deal of debate and extensive work on
> > creating a system for governance of future development
> > around the Perl language.
> >
> > How is it, then, that despite all this discussion,
> > a decision that represents a huge change to our community
> > infrastructure has been made with no one taking explicit
> > responsibility (at least in the official announcement[1])
> > and so far in the discussion here on p5p?
> >
> > I do not see the decision regarding RT documented in
> > steering committe minutes. Appearing somewhere on a issues
> > thread on github (if this is the case) does not, to me
> > constitute public discussion, unless links to these threads
> > appear on p5p.
> >
> > The community is being asked to trust the new steering
> > committee and governance model, to be reassured that
> > concerns such as those raised persistently by Yuki Kimoto[2]
> > about arbitrary changes imposed from above lack merit, given
> > that those who truly care about the future of Perl are
> > making decisions.
>
>
> You are gravely mistaken in conflating PSC, the Perl Core (and both as the
> new governance model) with this decision, which was done by a separate
> party, unrelated to governance, specifically *not* under the purview of the
> new governance (or the old, as a matter of fact), and was decided on by a
> private, dedicated volunteer prior to the governance.
>
>
> In other words, these have *zero* to do with each other. The new Perl
> governance model is in charge of this as much as we are in charge of a
> single, dedicated volunteer CPAN Testers smoker deciding to run smoke tests.
>
>
> To summarize in bullet points:
>
>
> * The old governance was not in charge of this
>
> * The new governance is *clearly* not in charge of this (per the official
> document on governance)
>
> * The decision was done before the new governance
>
> * This is a system maintained by volunteers who made the decision
>
>
> >
> > I consider the handling of rt.cpan.org to be a litmus test
> > and opportunity for the Steering Committee to
> > handle an issue important to the wellbeing of our community.
>
>
> This topic was raised in the last PSC meeting (notes forthcoming) but due to
> time constraints by other topic (we were far overtime), we had to punt this
> to the next meeting.
>
>
> Having said that, let me emphasize: This isn't our system, we are not in
> charge of it, we do not own it, we cannot tell a volunteer on a system we
> are not in charge of what do to. Most importantly, PSC is specifically, by
> charter, *not* in charge of infrastructure.
>
>
> Having said this "having said that", we are interested in seeing what we can
> do and we will.
>

--
Joel Roth