re-structuring PEAR and basic human nature

Hi, Before we get too deeply involved in talking about re-structuring PEAR, let's take a step back and look at who is actually developing in PEAR. PEAR primarily has developers whose sole interest is developing the package(s) that they maintain [1]. Any governing structure that doesn't take this into account will fail. The reason PEAR Group [2], PEAR QA, PEAR documentation [3], and any other organized group has had so little success is that people will not do extraneous work unless they are either paid to, or required to do it. The question before us is how can we make it a comfortable requirement to be minimally involved in the PEAR community, without making it a pain in the ass to be in the PEAR community? More importantly, what is minimally needed to make the PEAR community active? I think a shift in perception of how PEAR works would be wise. At the moment, all developers (me included) feel entitled to be in PEAR once we have CVS karma. We have forgotten what a privilege it is to be able to release code typed by our own hands through the php.net domain. To be a citizen of a country, there are certain requirements, such as registering for the draft, and to be a good citizen, registering to vote. Perhaps we can figure out what makes a PEAR citizen, and a good PEAR citizen. I think at minimum, a PEAR citizen must: 1) maintain their own package, respond to bugs and release in a timely manner 2) write pear-doc documentation to be a good citizen, we must occasionally help out with: 1) QAing unmaintained packages, fixing bugs 2) updating general documentation for PEAR 3) mentoring developers who are new to PEAR 4) implementing political changes in the PEAR website code I would say each one of us doing one of the above actions once per year should be more than enough to ensure the survival of the PEAR community. Many developers don't even satisfy point #2 of being a basic PEAR citizen, so this is asking more than we are asked to do now. Incidentally, his is a good example of we-need-a-technical-solution, as it is too difficult to write pear-doc docs for most developers. Ultimatley, the government we choose for PEAR should make it simple to regulate this, and should have a system of probation and account suspension in place, with clear lines of appeal and a clear leader. I must ask each of you proposing a system of government, please try to take these important truths into account as you think about the ideas, and to hold off proposing new systems until you are certain you've accounted for all of the above. Thanks, Greg [1] there are a few exceptions, most of them have the name "Arnaud Limbourg" :) [2] PEAR group has done its job of granting pear accounts, and CVS karma quite well. The decisions have not been quite as clear, and transparency as well because of the lack of time of the developers. [3] doc translation is a resounding success, and an interesting case to study when we're re-structuring: why does it work so well?