It is not that complex of a concept. but well... I can't make Thorsten understand it. (prob. Personal limitations, and a surprising need of his to engage in personal conflict -- as oppose to rationalize ideas while respecting the other)
Ah well, funny that you would talk of rationalizing ideas while respecting the other after having been disruptive to the point that free speech advocates restricted your access to the mailing list. Funny that you would talk about my personal limitations in a paragraph where you advocate the idea of respecting the other.
Thing is, I'm not that stupid. I've seen the rough talk from your side, now it's sweet talk from your side since the rough version didn't get you what you wanted. What I have not seen is any sign that you actually regret having insulted basically everyone (you have apologized to Curt, but definitely not to me for instance), that you genuinely want co-operation other than people do as you think best or that you could accept decisions that go not your way.
I think I understand your concepts all too well unfortunately.
I see two repositories of which each members want the other repository to stop exist
No, actually not. I want them to do the fair thing and move all their discussions and other infrastructure to their own forum. That's all. Using all the goodies of the official FG infrastructure but not playing with the team when decisions are made is parasitic, and I object to that.
So it might just be best to look for ways to make these two work together for the better of the whole fg community.
You mean it is a reasonable paradigm that we just give up on the idea that a decision reached by the project after a year and more of discussion means anything and everyone does as he personally prefers afterwards? Really?
Because that's at the core of the issue. We're a team. We've had a year of discussion at least how to re-structure repositories. We learned we would never be able to make everyone happy, so after pages and pages of arguments a viable consensus was found. I (and several others) have pointed out how a sub-optimal consensus is still better than duplicating critical infrastructure for the project, so we need to keep it together.
Yet some folks decided to have their will anyway, no matter the consequences for the community, and opted for insulting a good part of the devel team in the process. With the result you can see.
I understand the desire of community members to stop the fight. But there was due process - a long discussion, a consensus in the end, a decision made. Most of the FG developers participating in the discussion never post in the forum - the perception of a forum user how the numbers stand on the issue is hence very skewed, but there is broad support for the decision in the devel community for FGAddon. More than a year of arguments exchanged is quite enough. The fair thing is eventually to stick with the decision, not to meet those who can't play with the team halfway.
I won't go into the technical discussion of GIT vs. SVN - personally I am a GIT advocate, there have been very good arguments for SVN as well (for instance, I don't know what 'monolithic' means in a version control system in which I can check out individual subdirectories and do maintenance only on them). I can live with both.
I will say that claims to 'censorship' and 'gatekeeping tyranny' have been vastly overblown - the most popularized incident was a technical thing about consistent repository history structure, not related to the content of the commit at all. I will also say that events have shown that the amount of gatekeeping exercised on FGAddon is needed since I've had no trouble observing how FGMEMBERS shipped a mutilated version of my own work, and there have been several instances where third party hangar planes on FGMEMBERS refered to old and obsolete planes. So version control and general maintenance in response to core changes are reasonable concepts, to be discarded at your peril.