[members] proposed wording for SFC ballot

[Will Coleda]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Jonathan "Duke" Leto <jonathan at leto.net>wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> I now see where I respectfully but completely disagree.
>
> > My summary was about the long term, *after* we've joined TPF. In my
> opinion,
> > it is a waste of Parrot's limited resources to pursue an application to
> SFC
> > any time in the next 2-3 years. If/when Parrot has active production
> users
> > (i.e. potential donors), ~30 active developers, and ~10 active
> > non-developers doing "administrative" type work on the project, then I'd
> > consider it reasonable to approach SFC. (I'm hopeful we might get there
> in 3
> > years or so.)
>
> Why not wait until the heat death of the universe? Same thing. But
> seriously, where do these estimates come from?
>
> > But the only way Parrot can get to that point is by focusing on
> > *essentials*, using resources wisely to deliver the highest impact to
> > Parrot's future success. SFC hosting is not essential, it's not even
> > substantially different than TPF.
>
> TPF is "The Perl Foundation". Parrot is not Perl. TPF is not an
> appropriate long term home for Parrot.
>
> Duke
>
> --
> Jonathan "Duke" Leto <jonathan at leto.net>
> Leto Labs LLC http://letolabs.com
> 209.691.DUKE http://duke.leto.net
> @dukeleto
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> members at parrot.org
> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-members
>


I respectfully disagree with the last sentence here. Might not be "ideal",
but definitely appropriate.

I for one am interested to find out how the membership votes on this issue.
I think the "wish" verbiage makes it clear that this is how we feel today
and that this plan (whatever it ends up being) may not survive contact with
the future.

Regards.

-- 
Will "Coke" Coleda
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.parrot.org/pipermail/parrot-members/attachments/20130603/8c32fbc7/attachment.html>