For clarity- As I understand, given the language differences MM3 was a complete rewrite of MM2, so the only common parts are some features, the use of python (at all), and the name. Yes? Therefore anyone working on MM2 isn't impeding the work on MM3, especially if they weren't going to work on MM3 anyway.
On 8/28/2020 3:02 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
[...] These are three quite diverse codebases, each with their contributors/committers and project-level discussion groups, but there is quite a bit of cross-team communication and collaboration.
Just like with net/open/free BSD (and related or spinoff projects), and with things being ported between them and to/from linux. The world still hasn't ended.
It's all well and good to say "_We_ don't want to maintain this code.", it's vastly different to say "Pay no attention to that GPL, no one is allowed to maintain or improve that code." With the former, might as well welcome in a group of people to the overall project with the express intent of maintaining 2.x. With the latter, it's off into saying "no maintenance, no changes, nothing" and probably the same group of people will fork off the code-base, maybe change the name, and do their maintenance/updates anyway.
Or... it's pretty likely that MM2 maintenance, and maybe improvements, will continue in some fashion. The question is whether that's under the auspices of the gnu-mailman project or in a fork. If the existing gnu-mailman team doesn't want new members working on old code, and that's the way it sounds, just say so and give the blessing for a code fork.
Later,
z!