[Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch maintainership

[Thomas Lord]

I would like to offer you (and respectfully (even if
publicly) ask that you accept) my resignation as GNU
Arch maintainer, effective immediately.

Here is my reasoning:

1. This is best for me.   The role will not help 
   me with my current troubles and those troubles
   prevent me from dedicating time to being a 
   GNU maintainer.

2. This would be best for the FSF since I can not
   represent the FSF's political stance on issues
   I think relevant to GNU Arch (and other GNU 
   projects).

I will remain a passive observer (and fan) of the FSF
and GNU.  In the future, if I have the opportunity
to, I may approach you about some completed software
projects I would like to offer for GNU.   (As you know,
my economic troubles are such that I am quite uncertain
I'll have such opportunity, but if I do I'd like to 
keep that door open.)

Perhaps, in that regard, your leadership of GNU has been
more mature and effective and aligned with the values
we've discussed recently than could be inferred from
my letters:  for quite some time now, you've endorsed
mostly projects which, for external reasons, stand a
good chance of reaching maturity, thus sparing FSF
the thorny issues of excessive *direct* engagement with the
volunteer community (Arch, which I distinguish from baz
even if nobody else does, is an exception to "good chance";
Savannah and similar infrastructures projects, examples
of engagement which is plausibly not excessive by virtue
of necessity).

No, strike the "perhaps" in that paragraph.  And if I
seem backhanded with the asterisks ("*direct*") I
do not mean to be, only to acknowledge for the record
that which, from my perspective, distinguishes the free software
*movement* from the free software *foundation*.

I would like to, and think it is customary, to offer
my advice at this point about what to do next with GNU
Arch.   It would probably surprise many people but
my recommendation is to endorse baz as GNU Arch,
to express hope that baz-ng will mature and ideally
benefit from work done in the git community (as I
did with the Arch 2.0 early releases I made) and... 
well... *perhaps* this:

If you want to solicit a new maintainer, and if the
FSF can afford a *modest* stipend for their work,
direct that the new maintainer:

a) Directly copy baz releases as GNU releases, but:

b) Submit changes to Canonical as necessary to
   ensure that:

   b1) all copyrights and notices are in order 
       (you may need me to reaffirm this or that 
       here; no problem.   you may need to 
       contemplate the issue of what kinds of 
       paperwork are needed and from whom)

   b2) progress is made on basic coding standards
       (perhaps autoconfiscation is in order;
        perhaps long lines should be broken and
        whitespace fixed)

   b3) progress is made on stable, free documentation
       in a high-quality, printable format

   Those tasks befit a modest stipend and a small
   number of hours per month -- they are worthy 
   yet not urgent or exceptionally difficult.   
   Effective progress on them would be to the credit
   of whoever did them, I think.

Those steps will not fix what *I* see to be a long
list of emerging long term problems with the whole
situation but that is the point: they *could* give
Arch's progeny a fighting, respectable chance in
the shorter term, against formidable odds.

Regards,
-t

p.s.: you may, of course, share any of the messages I've
      sent you this month, at least where you believe it
      would not harm me.