On 09/04/2014 09:07 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió: >>> No, it's really not unfair at all. You are basically saying Andrew is >>> doing a crappy job as a maintainer > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia > <guille.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> No, I am definitely NOT saying that, nothing even close. Please don't put >> your words in my mouth, thank you. > > Of course you are saying that. Why else would you even bring up the > issue of finding a "competent successor" which implies that Andrew is > no longer interested in GNU Classpath and neglecting its maintenance? Whoa Pekka, be nice. Let's just assume that Guillermo is sincere, and he wants to help. The problem isn't competence. All of us are competent. It's a lack of time. All of us, I believe, have day jobs, and none of them are in GNU Classpath development. > El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió: >>> Once you answer the hypothetical question *who* should >>> be the successor, you will understand why. > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia > <guille.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I see, so if I don't have the answer, the question makes no sense. Ok. > > You didn't even try to answer the question, did you? > > If Andrew actually needed a "competent successor" (he doesn't), what > is required of that person? The person needs to be an active > developer, needs to understand GNU Classpath well, and has to have > support from people who actually developed the project, right? > > Are you able to make an educated guess who actually meets that criteria? Guillermo, please. You phrased your point badly, in a way that was likely to annoy people. I believe that you didn't want to do that. Everyone: let's have a proper discussion. Is there something we can do with GNU Classpath that takes it further forward. And, if so, what? What would our goals be? Andrew.
