Re: Need new project admin for unbundled Tcl interface

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> As for why the core changes didn't make it into gborg, few realized
>> there was a gborg version because there was still a version in core CVS.
>
> More to the point, the core version has gotten maintained "because it's
> there". We've applied a few submitted patches (mostly ljb's it looks
> like) but most of the recent patches in libpgtcl have been by-blows from
> global-search-and-replace type fixes.
>
> If there's an active gborg project to maintain libpgtcl then I've got no
> problem with pushing the responsibility out. Right at the moment
> though, I think that there's nobody home on the other end. The gborg
> pgtcl project hasn't seen a CVS commit in more than a year. We need
> to stir up some action; if that means giving ljb ownership of a fork
> project, fine with me.

I'm not in a diplomatic mood today, so watch your toes.

Fact is that the current maintainers of the gborg project have not
maintained it for whatever reason in a long time. If there would have
been as much interest in "keeping" the project as there is now, some
fixes to -core would have been incorporated and they would probably have
asked at some point to even remove the -core pieces to get rid of this
syncing problem.

And now that ljb has worked on this for a considerable time and asks for
handing over the project, the responses aren't that there are plans,
that there is work going on, that there is more to it than it looks
like, the responses are pretty much what I would expect from someone who
feels awkward and fears the prestige loss that happens when you are
forced out of a public position.

On the other hand, ljb would have done better by joining the team first
(it is my understanding that this was offered instead, correct me if I'm
wrong), and then asking for the handover from the position of a member
later. This is more etiquette and political politeness than any hard
requirement, yet not to underestimate.

I conclude that the main problem here is not a technical one but rather
a prestige and etiquette question. The chance to step down and leave
galantly was missed, but that doesn't matter much to me. Thus I agree,
give ljb ownership of a fork.

From a pure technical point of view I understand that ljb has produced
a merge of both versions and even worked forward from there already. If
there isn't any substantial work in the pipeline of the gborg project,
that we don't see yet and which to present or announce would be the
right time now, I think that fork has a good chance to succeed.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #