Maintainers wanted / Forking in progress

[elthariel]

After a few attempts at contacting the previous maintainers, I've decided to fork the project and to rename it BackupII. Feel free to introduce yourself if you have some spare time to help.

I'm still thinking about it, and would appreciate any input on the matter, but I'd like to get some community-based maintenance mode put in place, as well as some owners for the various subsystems.

[elthariel]

Hi @AdibMurshed, thank you very much for getting in touch, it is much appreciated. I'm not entirely sure of how you might be willing to support this, though. Do you mind making this a bit clearer for my poor mind ?

[elthariel]

Thank you very much for your support. I'll reach out if the need arises. At the moment, (free) time is what is needed the most :)

[peterfication]

Thanks a lot for trying to go forward with this project @elthariel :)

I tried to have a look at it and realized the Docker setup did not work, so I opened a PR with a fix to the Dockerfile and some documentation on how to get started: #6

[elthariel]

Thanks @peterfication :)

[slithernix]

I'm willing to be a maintainer. But only if this fork is regarded as the "one true fork". I don't want to be part of a splinter project.

[elthariel]

@jmcdonagh I'm not sure of how I can guarantee you the one true fork thing :)
I guess a good way would be to easily give collaborator access to people who submits PR ?

[PsiACE]

Thank you for your work and I think I will try to do something about it.

[elthariel]

Hey @PsiACE @jmcdonagh @peterfication,

Just giving you a heads up. The original author and the last maintainer of the projects have been taking some time to look into the lack of maintenance of the original gem. I've been given owner rights on the original backup organization, so I'll archive this project and resume work on the original gem.

I guess this answer your question @jmcdonagh 👍

With the support of the original author, we're planning to transition to a community-based governance model. You can have a look at the proposed policy here (it's largely based on the node js policy): backup#955

[peterfication]

I followed the discussion there. Thanks a lot @elthariel for your efforts! :)