From mutt-dev Tue Nov 12 10:12:16 2013 From: Oswald Buddenhagen Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:12:16 +0000 To: mutt-dev Subject: Re: The future of mutt... - intermediate aggregation Message-Id: <20131112101216.GA7891 () ugly ! local> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=138425116202643 On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:18:21PM +0100, jpacner@redhat.com wrote: > Hi Oswald, > > and who makes *that* call? where do you draw the line? it doesn't appear > > magically, somebody with the competence and guts (=> authority) has to > > do it. > > If you're bold enough (devs/committers are :)), you'll do it. > that would make me a new maintainer. wait, we already were at that point in the discussion ... > > ... but the simple fact is that there is nobody here > > who wants the job and is up to it, and no degree of trying to be "more > > welcoming" will change that. > > It might be or might not be so (just thinking about it is neither > productive nor helpful - doing something [e.g. trying new paths in case > of mutt] is the way to go). We have devs primarily for stable releases > and these minions for unstable releases - KISS. > sounds more like BSD to me - Blue Sky Dreams. > > what might work is surveying the various forks out there, and if one > > with a competent and reasonably active+cooperative maintainer is found, > > offer him the job with no further strings attached. the first part can > > (and probably must) be done by the wider community, the second by the > > maintainers. > > Sure - if I understand you correctly, you mean "first part" from the > time-perspective ... > no, actually, i was referring to the first part of my first sentence in that paragraph. of course there is a time perspective to it, but that's not the point. > ... which seems like a "title" for my proposal about introduction of a > partly-stable branch. > i completely fail to understand what you mean. > >>> then maybe you should explain what you meant? thinking it through > >>> properly? > >> > >> I tried, but didn't notice anyone from "those who are still around" to > >> not care. Therefore I was a bit surprised by your view/feeling. > >> > > this makes no sense. maybe you again forgot what you said yourself? > > Well, "care" in the sense, they try (actively) not to give permissions > to those who try to improve/fix mutt. > to remind you, the original context was caring about modern features. > > further, this here is a community which is 20 years old and cleary > > didn't have significant "modern influences". so what exactly is your > > point? > > I'm afraid I can't agree with the conclusion "clearly didn't have > significant ...". > i'm referring to the core community on this list - the (ex-)maintainers and occasional contributors. the observable behavior seems very traditional to me, and entirely consistent with esr's essay. > >> In mutts trac there are plenty of patches from people who tried the > >> "more agile" variant [...] > >> > > uh, what? > > i see no evidence of a shift in unpaid foss contribution patterns. > > I'm not sure if it's necessary to see the shift, but it's definitely > necessary to be aware of the current state/attitude and to act accordingly. > yes. but i'm not sure what one has to do with the other. > > also, the whole "agile" buzz seems utterly inapplicable to loosely knit > > online communities. or approached differently, they *already were* agile > > before the corporate world made it a fad. > > Agile in its original meaning (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agile) > applies to the behavior of devs of many (I would say more than half) > mutt-sized projects (especially those being so common like mutt) these days. > the one thing that doesn't fit into this sentence is "these days". ;) anyway, it is very clear that this discussion is not going anywhere. some of the maintainers have voiced mildly cautionary opinions which are consistent with what i said. iirc, there was *no* support for your proposal. if you want to achieve something, you need to deliver something of use. either you get cracking yourself and strive to be a maintainer, or try to reach out to other people who might be accepted as maintainers. in either case, the usual meritocratic rules that are in place apply.