From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Fri Jun 8 10:00:14 2018 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (RonnyPfannschmidt) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:00:14 +0200 Subject: [execnet-dev] [RFC] putting execnet under the C4.2 process and under the MPL Message-ID: Hi everyone, since execnet development has been kind of dead since ages, i wonder if opening up using a proofen model would help along. thus i propose putting execnet under c4.2 as governing process while using the mpl as compatible license that has sufficient liberties. -- Ronny From holger at merlinux.eu Fri Jun 8 12:05:48 2018 From: holger at merlinux.eu (holger krekel) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 18:05:48 +0200 Subject: [execnet-dev] [RFC] putting execnet under the C4.2 process and under the MPL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180608160548.GL4003@beto> hi Ronny, can you post a link to "c4.2" and "mpl" both of which i don't recall as code words currently? also, what evidence is there that changing "governing" would bring more community? Are there people wanting to land PRs but they are blocked? holger On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 16:00 +0200, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > since execnet development has been kind of dead since ages, > i wonder if opening up using a proofen model would help along. > > thus i propose putting execnet under c4.2 as governing process while > using the mpl as compatible license that has sufficient liberties. > > -- Ronny > > _______________________________________________ > execnet-dev mailing list > execnet-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/execnet-dev From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Mon Jun 11 09:34:04 2018 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (RonnyPfannschmidt) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:34:04 +0200 Subject: [execnet-dev] [RFC] putting execnet under the C4.2 process and under the MPL In-Reply-To: <20180608160548.GL4003@beto> References: <20180608160548.GL4003@beto> Message-ID: Hi Holger, https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22/C4/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ its not necessarily clear that this will bring more community, but the process in C4.2 is designed to prevent stuff like the 2 recent major messes (aka execmodel addition, and the serializer protocol regression) -- Ronny Am 08.06.2018 um 18:05 schrieb holger krekel: > hi Ronny, > > can you post a link to "c4.2" and "mpl" both of which i don't recall > as code words currently? > > also, what evidence is there that changing "governing" would bring > more community? Are there people wanting to land PRs but they are > blocked? > > holger > > > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 16:00 +0200, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> since execnet development has been kind of dead since ages, >> i wonder if opening up using a proofen model would help along. >> >> thus i propose putting execnet under c4.2 as governing process while >> using the mpl as compatible license that has sufficient liberties. >> >> -- Ronny >> >> _______________________________________________ >> execnet-dev mailing list >> execnet-dev at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/execnet-dev From holger at merlinux.eu Mon Jun 11 13:24:24 2018 From: holger at merlinux.eu (holger krekel) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:24:24 +0200 Subject: [execnet-dev] [RFC] putting execnet under the C4.2 process and under the MPL In-Reply-To: References: <20180608160548.GL4003@beto> Message-ID: <20180611172424.GN4673@beto> Hey Ronny, On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 15:34 +0200, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote: > Hi Holger, > > https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22/C4/ > > https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ > > its not necessarily clear that this will bring more community, > but the process in C4.2 is designed to prevent stuff like the 2 recent > major messes (aka execmodel addition, and the serializer protocol > regression) well, you could also fork an earlier version and release as a different project? the license allows this ... i am skeptical of discussing licensing and other process questions if execnet does not see much development at all ... holger > -- Ronny > > Am 08.06.2018 um 18:05 schrieb holger krekel: > > hi Ronny, > > > > can you post a link to "c4.2" and "mpl" both of which i don't recall > > as code words currently? > > > > also, what evidence is there that changing "governing" would bring > > more community? Are there people wanting to land PRs but they are > > blocked? > > > > holger > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 16:00 +0200, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> > >> since execnet development has been kind of dead since ages, > >> i wonder if opening up using a proofen model would help along. > >> > >> thus i propose putting execnet under c4.2 as governing process while > >> using the mpl as compatible license that has sufficient liberties. > >> > >> -- Ronny > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> execnet-dev mailing list > >> execnet-dev at python.org > >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/execnet-dev From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Wed Jun 13 10:18:06 2018 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (RonnyPfannschmidt) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:18:06 +0200 Subject: [execnet-dev] [RFC] putting execnet under the C4.2 process and under the MPL In-Reply-To: <20180611172424.GN4673@beto> References: <20180608160548.GL4003@beto> <20180611172424.GN4673@beto> Message-ID: Hi Holger, in that case i'll fork the current state under a new name and sort out the stuff i want to bring in/change there. -- Ronny Am 11.06.2018 um 19:24 schrieb holger krekel: > Hey Ronny, > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 15:34 +0200, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote: >> Hi Holger, >> >> https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22/C4/ >> >> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ >> >> its not necessarily clear that this will bring more community, >> but the process in C4.2 is designed to prevent stuff like the 2 recent >> major messes (aka execmodel addition, and the serializer protocol >> regression) > > well, you could also fork an earlier version and release as > a different project? the license allows this ... > i am skeptical of discussing licensing and other process questions > if execnet does not see much development at all ... > > holger > >> -- Ronny >> >> Am 08.06.2018 um 18:05 schrieb holger krekel: >>> hi Ronny, >>> >>> can you post a link to "c4.2" and "mpl" both of which i don't recall >>> as code words currently? >>> >>> also, what evidence is there that changing "governing" would bring >>> more community? Are there people wanting to land PRs but they are >>> blocked? >>> >>> holger >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 16:00 +0200, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> >>>> since execnet development has been kind of dead since ages, >>>> i wonder if opening up using a proofen model would help along. >>>> >>>> thus i propose putting execnet under c4.2 as governing process while >>>> using the mpl as compatible license that has sufficient liberties. >>>> >>>> -- Ronny >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> execnet-dev mailing list >>>> execnet-dev at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/execnet-dev