Re: bioinfo package - maintenance of ...

[Steph Bredenhann]

I have followed this discussion for some time, my opinion is that democracy is complicating the issue. And the question; who is defining democracy in this case?

Steph

On 31/12/2017 13:16, Olaf Till wrote:

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Alois Schloegl wrote:

On 2017-12-29 11:22, Olaf Till wrote:

Oliver and me currently consider to ask the maintainers to vote on
turning 'bioinfo' into an 'external' Octave Forge package

do I need to wait until this vote has happened ?

Yes, if you please.

If yes, when will this
vote take place?

As soon as you have answered my question in a sense that makes the
vote useful.

My plan was to start the day before yesterday. Since my spare time
will be over at 2nd January, it would be nice if I could start the
vote today or tomorrow.

But once someone else should be willing and able to maintain it in the
'community' group again, and we see a need for it, we would let him do
so, and therefore take the corresponding 'external' package off again
from Octave Forge.

I'm not sure I understand; what do you mean by "[taking a] .. package
off .. Octave Forge" ? And even a "community" package is usually
maintained on Octave Forge - why would you take it off ? Do I need to
worry about this - or is this about some other unrelated issue ?

We want to publish a package at Octave Forge either in the 'community'
or in the 'external' group, not in both at the same time (even if the
published versions are different). As long as you maintain 'bioinfo'
in the 'external' group, there should be no corresponding package in
the 'community' group (actually, for this specific package, having no
maintainer for it in the 'community' group would be the sole reason to
give it away into the 'external' group). However, once someone else
should be willing and able to maintain 'bioinfo' in the 'community'
group, and we see a need for it, we would let him be the maintainer
(instead of you...) and assign the package to the 'community' group
(this would mean that Matlab compatibiliy is not adhered to
anymore). The reason is that the package corresponds to a Matlab
toolbox, so we want a certain degree of community control over it, if
the resources are available.

The above is no 'contract'. I only want you to see all implications
before we ask the maintainers to spend time to vote.

Since your previous answer seemed ambiguous to me, please tell us
again if you understand the above and still want a vote.

Olaf

--
Steph Bredenhann Pr.Eng, Pr.CPM

Tel: 021 854 6927
Fax: 086 66 95 380
Mobile: 082 55 00 207

(sent from PC)