I'm sorry you feel that way George. I've not come back yet. Do you have an
alternate proposal that doesn't leave the project dead?
Look, I'd rather have someone else take over who's able to do so. But nobody
has done that and I don't want to see the project die.
Maybe I'm a troll or some other pejorative for insisting on this, but as the
maintainership is a rather thankless job I don't want to waste my time having
arguments like the one that led me to leave in the first place.
IMO leadership by consensus only works when you have a project with a
sufficient number of qualified leaders who can work together. To date nanomsg
has failed to meet that bar, and I have no interest in catering to the whims of
a vocal minority of non contributors
There is a place for democracy. IMO open source efforts rarely are such. And
if the license guarantees the right to fork then there is little need for any
other check or balance on power.
My own emotional well being won't support it. I have too many other demands on
my time to waste effort on a project where my investments are not appreciated
and where the effort itself does not give me pleasure.
So if enough other people agree with you then I will simply decline to step up.
Or if one of them is Dirkjan.
So far there are two. Any others.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2016, at 6:19 PM, George Lambert <marchon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A dictatorship is a great thing as long as your the dictator
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:17 PM Bent Cardan <bent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh come on George don't unsubscribe!
I don't always agree with gdamore, but I strongly support his return to
leadership of the project!
:)
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2016, at 9:11 PM, George Lambert <marchon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In response to Garrett becoming the benevolent dictator for life please
remove me from the list
George
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:13 PM Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
If there's one thing I've learned in life and in my career, no one is
that irreplaceable. As others have stated, we can fork and run with it
apart from this if need be.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Want to come back is a little too strong. Agree to come back because
nobody else* competent stepped up is more accurate.
I would actually be quite happy if the project carried on well without
me. I was hoping for this, because working on libnanomsg is not a labor
of love for me. Sadly it never happened.
Your response here is precisely why if I do take over it will only be as
a BDFL; I don't want to have to feel obliged to give these kinds of
unhelpful opinions the time of day.
- Garrett
* Yes I know you volunteered to take over. Nobody responded and I think
that part of the reason is that there is no evidence that you've done
any work on the core. You've created a small language binding but have
not actually touched the implementation of libnanomsg itself as far as
anyone else could see.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 8, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
1) you suggest a CoC
2) some people (me included) oppose
3) like an offended little child you step down
4) time passes
5) you want to came back, taking full control of everything, making all
decisions on your own, becoming a dicator.
Please refrain from doing so.
If you insist on doing so, that’s fine, as well. Easy enough to fork
the project, if really needed.
That said, if you do take the reins, then I suspect the most likely
future for nanomsg is to wither and die.
(That you use terms like BDFL, dictator for life, leadership, etc. imo
shows that you are a childish person that is not fit to lead a project.)
Am 08.04.2016 um 21:59 schrieb Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>:
The nanomsg project has been fairly leaderless since I stepped down
back in early January.
I’d hoped that there would be signs of someone else stepping up into
the maintainership role, but that has not occurred. Nobody is merging
or even reviewing contributions that I can tell.
I’ve therefore stated (as of a day or two ago) that I would be —
albeit reluctantly — willing to step back into the leadership. To be
clear, if I were to do this, it would be as a benevolent (hopefully)
dictator for life. That is, I am not interested in trying to lead or
govern this project by consensus. I will listen to opinions, and I
may ask for them, but at the end of the day if I’m lead, then my
decisions would be final, within legal limitations. (Notably legally
I cannot relicense the project — nor do I have any interest in doing
so. So the freedom to fork if you can’t stand my leadership would
remain.)
The reason I’m wiling to do this is *solely* because I don’t want to
see nanomsg whither and die. And yet, that seems to be where its
headed. I’ve gotten some indications in support of me doing this in
other fora, and at least one formerly active contributor has indicated
that he might begin contributing again under my leadership.
However, I will not take control of the project by fiat. In
particular, Dirkjan Ochtman needs to make a decision as he is the last
person with commit privileges to the github repo. Technically I still
have admin privileges, but I’d rather not act without his consent.
I’ll also state this — if there is a clear majority of opinions
opposed to my taking this step, then I’ll decline to take the reins.
I don’t want to be an unwelcome leader — I don’t love this project
*that* much. So if you are violently opposed (or in favor) please
speak up. Once I *do* take the reins, I won’t be very likely to give
them up again.
That said, if I do *not* take the reins, then I suspect the most
likely future for nanomsg is to whither and die.
To be clear, if you support my action, you *are* supporting a BDFL, so
be sure that a dictator is really what you want. You’ve been warned.
- Garrett
