> Sigh, not this again. I think that I prefer email vice a proprietary, centralised single point of failure like GitHub, and I know that I'd rather not work wit

> Sigh, not this again. I think that I prefer email vice a proprietary, centralised single point of failure like GitHub, and I know that I'd rather not work with someone who considers email unapproachable. That's a fair debate in general, and I think you're right that there are some advantages to mailing-list driven approaches when they're done really well. But after being subscribed to the pass list the last few months (and having seen similar situations on other projects in the past), I've been a bit underwhelmed with the actual execution there. There seems to be a lack of transparency around how to submit, what to submit, if/when/how it's considered or evaluated for incorporation, and when that might actually make it to a release. As a result there seems to be (even in this fairly short time) lots of repeated conversations about similar fixes/features/ideas and duplicate and overlapping patches around them. I get that it seems to be a one-person show, and maybe not his/her top priority, and don't mean this as a criticism of the project (which I use and love.) But I think it's valuable to note that mail based models do really need active and engaged maintainers on the list all the time to make them work out well. If they aren't able or willing to do so, and want to be a bit more hands-off, I think github or something like it perhaps is a better model.