This issue has come up on the mailing list more than once and it was also discussed in the admin project as an issue. In short, the community is suffering from the "Too Many Chefs in the Kitchen" syndrome. There is a lot of discussion, with many opinions, but there is no authority body that can actually make a decision that drives the project towards improvement, and therefore things do not happen quickly (if at all).
Amen.
We will not always be able to make a decision that everyone can agree to, but decisions should satisfy a majority of participants and also help drive project quality and developer efficiency to improve. Standardizing on github for issues will do both.
As an observer of numerous discussions, I find process collecting agreements frustrating: - a proposal is discussed, 2, 3, 10, 15, ..? people participate - agreement is nearly completed - suddenly, an objection arrives from someone - whole agreement reached so far collapses - no one feels like challenging the objection with simple "you've been late", - steam is out, proposal dies
All the above is true. Things always arrive at a stalemate. This is the queue for the "Board of Directors to step in, review the conflicting proposals, make a decision and find someone willing and able to implement it. On hard part is accepting the fact that someone will leave unhappy. The other hard part is to avoid stepping into the it (the debate) themselves and try to craft something baroque which pleases everyone. Long story short: a) The BOD should review this chain. b) decide what to do c) line up someone to actually do it. d) See that it gets done. e) Announce that's done. f) Deflect, redirect or ignore the inevitable complaints g) Retreating back in their holes to ride out the shit storm of irrelevancy. h) until the next time an actual decision has to be made. The list will quiet down and move on ... until the next time. Robert Ramey Making Boost Great Again!