Hi Craig,
Sorry for the delay and many thanks for your plan.
I have also sent your plan to the Unofficial Twisted Software Foundation.
Just for everyone's information, the real name for the relevant group here is the "Twisted Project Leadership Committee for the Software Freedom Conservancy". The reason that the relevant mailing list is titled "unofficial twisted software foundation" is that we started off investigating if we could start our own foundation, and later, when we opted to have the Software Freedom Conservancy as our fiscal sponsor instead, the name "twisted software foundation" became "unofficial" because there is no such legal entity.
From what I can see we are stuck in bureaucratic process.
We are stuck at the point before the bureaucratic process :). The bureaucratic process is that the PLC votes to approve the plan.
The plan needs to be approved ... and [the PLC] want to have a single plan submitted for approval.
The reason the plan needs to be approved is that the plans for the fellowship are documented here -
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/Fellowship2015#WorkPlan - and that says "The maintainer will develop a plan for migration of development to GitHub, and once it has been approved implement the plan".
We now have 3 plans : Amber's, Craig's and mine..... and we see which plan to be sent to [the PLC].
Also [the PLC]
will only consider plans for GitHub.com.
This is also because it's written in
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/Fellowship2015#WorkPlan, so it was decided before the fellowship began. However, lots of the steps to move to
GitHub.com are also necessary prerequisites to use any of those sites - getting rid of subversion and reducing the amount of infrastructure we are operating. Moving from Github somewhere else ought to be radically simpler than the process we've been undertaking to move to Github.
We can try to keep tickets/wiki/website on Trac and only move the main repo + PR + hooks to GitHub.
This sounds good to me.
This should allow us to get rid of SVN and build the infrastructure on web hooks. Later we can consider migration to other tools... or extending the
GitHub.com usage to Issues / Wiki / GitHub Pages...etc
Until now we failed to coordinate toward creating a single plan and besides Glyph's comments on IRC, I have not received any feedback from [the PLC] for any of the plans.
The PLC is unlikely to be involved. Personally, I'm severely overcommitted; most of the other PLC members have a very low level of involvement with the project. Not going to point fingers specifically, but some hardly answer their email :-).
While I would prefer it if the PLC were a bit more involved, it should not be much of an issue in this case (assuming that I can herd the cats in the right direction when it's time for a vote). The PLC's job in this case is only to provide oversight, just to verify that the plan is a proper investment of the SLC's financial resources. In the same way that reviewers should not participate too closely in the authorship of patches they review, it should be fine if the PLC is not involved in the planning process. (If we had the personal resources to do so, we probably wouldn't have needed to put it into the fellowship plan!) The PLC won't decide between a set of different plans; it will just give final approval to the proposed one.
Can we plan an IRC/Google Hangouts meeting to discuss the plan?
I've not had good luck with Hangouts, personally, but scheduling time on IRC sounds like a good idea.
If you would like to see Twisted on Git and GitHub please consider joining the meeting.
Ultimately, it is Amber and Adi who need to coordinate on this. But I would strongly encourage anyone with an interest in this migration to participate in the planning process; clearly we need some help nailing down the specifics :).