Re: I resign as Guile maintainer

[Gary Houston <ghouston at freewire dot co dot uk>]

| > People have sent me a long list of names of people who might be
| > qualified in some way or another to work on Guile.  But that is
| > not really what we need.
| > 
| > Can anyone suggest a short list of names of people who might be good
| > candidates for the chief maintainer of Guile?
| 
| My first choices would be any of:
| 
| Mikael Djurfeldt <djurfeldt@nada.kth.se>
| Marius Vollmer <mvo@krusty.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>
| Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@alum.mit.edu>
| 
| but I think they are not able to accept.  I think the strongest
| remaining candidates are:
| 
| Gary Houston <ghouston@freewire.co.uk>
| Greg Badros <badros@cs.washington.edu>

And Greg doesn't want to do it either.  What a particularly bloody
power struggle this is turning out to be.  Don't forget Ken Raeburn
and Greg Harvey however.

It isn't clear to me that there's any obvious candidate for chief
maintainer, but wouldn't it be feasible to simply grant the relevant
powers/responsibilities to all of the Guile developers?  There's
already a privileged group who have full access to the CVS repository,
so it would be a simple extension.

It seems to me that having a single maintainer has turned out to be a
bottleneck at times in the past.  This is not a criticism of the
abilities of the maintainers, but there have been times when they've
been busy elsewhere and Guile development has suffered. I suspect the
same thing would happen if I was the chief.