Moving to fsprojects organization

[vasily-kirichenko]

I think @jack-pappas has not had time for this project for recent months, #32 was closed without merging, this is a very bad sign.

I propose to move this project to fsprojects organization, move to Paket, add a project build script, and release version 1.0 after #32 is merged.

@7sharp9 @dsyme @forki @enricosada @wallymathieu

[wallymathieu]

As long as there is someone who respects the vision of the project in charge of it, it should be fine.

[wallymathieu]

There is a lot of code in ExtCore, so it would probably be nice to have additional maintainers in order to help @jack-pappas.

[vasily-kirichenko]

@wallymathieu I'm not suggesting to change anything in the project vision, etc. I just suggest to resurrect it so other people could merge PRs and release the NuGet package.

[7sharp9]

This library tends to be well thought out and optimized, thats why I like to use it, Ive not explored an awful lot of the features but it is really useful to me anyway.

[vasily-kirichenko]

@7sharp9 yes. I've ended up building a private package with #32 merged and use it. That's not good.

[wallymathieu]

Indeed, it would be nice to resurrect the project. It would be good to have people who shares @jack-pappas vision in charge.

[wallymathieu]

What do you think @jack-pappas ?

[jack-pappas]

I'd prefer not to move ExtCore to fsprojects. I don't think the location of the project is the real issue here -- it's that I haven't had free time to work on ExtCore in a long while, but I also haven't made it easy (or even possible, really) for others to help maintain the project.

I think if we fix the maintainability issues, we're probably in good shape for the future, right? I've written up some issues this morning for various maintenance tasks and created a new project for this repo to track them: https://github.com/jack-pappas/ExtCore/projects/1

Would you all mind taking a look at the issues I've created and commenting if you have thoughts to share?

[wallymathieu]

So, essentially it is that there is a single maintainer? But that could also be seen as a pro since it can keep the vision aligned.

[vasily-kirichenko]

I'm OK with not moving it if there is a way to publish packages via CI.

[dsyme]

@jack-pappas Any chance you could appoint a back up maintainer with rights to repo and nugets? e.g. in case you go dark? :)

You can put constraints on that if you like? e.g. "the community can request to activate the back up maintainer if there has been not replies to repo activity for more than 2 months and there are new bug fixes avaiable and features to release"?

[wallymathieu]

@dsyme sounds like a good policy 👍