Don, as you aptly observed, you walked out on the meeting. There was talk, there was discussion and there was a show of hands. That's what promted me to make the suggestion public. Had you read further before starting your comment you would have read my comment of *NOT* tipping this after recieving the feedback from the community. Anyone else can, but I'm not convinced moving over there is a good decision, anymore.
On the other hand, I do not think that singleing out Frank in the way you did is appropriate. It was his suggestion, yes, but it found approval by more people, including me, during that meeting. But that group did not constitute the whole community and the whole wisdom of the community. This is why I brought this up so we had the discussion in public.
Additionally it has never been my intention to link moving to SVN to moving to sourceforge in a manner where it means: "We need to move to sourceforge so we can move to SVN". I'm slowly doubting my english communication skills here in the forums 😊.
As you aptly suggested, we need someone who has the resources to see the move to SVN happen. And while he is at it, he might be wiling to take a look at getting a copy of the SVN synchronized to sourcefore. Or not, as Danielle mentioned, it might not matter that much. Yet I am *not* convinced we should be held up by the fact that we encounter errors with moving the history, if we are serious about moving to SVN, but that is an utterly different issue.
Again, there have been other suggestions on how to improve the visibilty of the community and I just hope that between Nima (who took notes) and Caroline (who chaired the meeting) they will come up again, otherwise I will have to continue posting (with all the repercussions this might entail (joking!!)). The topic of moving the repository over to sourceforge for me is dead, unless the resource providing SVN for OpenACS is willing to setup a sync server to sourceforge.
