From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-06-06T00:30:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Who's maintaining log4r?

On 1/3/07, Tom Copeland <tom@infoether.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 13:49 +0900, pat eyler wrote:
> > > But I really, really don't like to pull a project out from under an
> > > admin, even if the project is popular and that admin seems to have
> > > disappeared.
> >
> > Respectfully, I disagree.  I think there should be a policy describing
> > how a project can be changed given an unresponsive admin.  Forks
> > should be caused by a difference in opinion about how the project
> > is running or the direction it's going.
> >
> > If a popular project stalls for a long period of time and the maintainer
> > is no longer available, forking it just leads to confusion for everyone
> > involved.  How many people will continue to point at log4r even though
> > it's not progressing, just because it looks more official than log4r2.
>
> Hm.  I hear ya.  Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
> I'll chat with the RubyCentral guys (Rich/David/Chad) and see what they
> think.  RubyForge is owned by RubyCentral (they pay for hardware and
> bandwidth) so they've got the final say on any policy decision like
> this...
>
> Thanks for the comments,
>
> Yours,
>
> Tom
>
>

Well just in case if the quantity of opinions counts I think that
Pat's point is very valid indeed.

Cheers
Robert


-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw