Re: I resign as Guile maintainer

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Michael Livshin <mlivshin@bigfoot.com> writes:

<snip>

> > 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 very much agree with all of the above.
> 
> it would be ideal if FSF (or somebody else, but who else is likely to
> do that?) could hire a full-time person to be the Guile maintainer.

Well, Redhat has the resources, too.  And with their recent combination
with Cygnus, who knows?

> since that seems unlikely, the "cabal" approach like Gary advocates is
> best.  and I also agree with Dirk's point about the perfectionism wrt
> feature additions -- there is a stable version out, after all, so let
> the CVS version be as shaky as it needs to be.

I think Scwm did pretty well with Maciej and I as co-maintainers, so I
don't think there is anything wrong with multiple people leading the
project.

Greg