If CRAN were a passive repository, the discussion about its policies
would not be relevant to this list e.g., SourceForge. However, the
development of R and its packages are very intimately connected to the
CRAN repository policy.
I doubt any of the players in building our current R ecosystem ever
imagined it would become this big. The serious implications of
repository and related policies for future development and health of
this ecosystem and its community members deserve transparent debate. As
with any movement based on volunteer contribution, R will adapt or be
replaced.
As far as I'm aware -- and welcome correction -- we don't have a list to
discuss policies by CRAN or other actors. This list seems appropriate
because it generally involves those doing development for R. Whether
R-core should or should not listen to such deliberations is also open to
debate. My own view -- which could change depending on how things evolve
-- is that a small central committee is fine as long as they are able to
both support and be supported by the wider development community that
provides the packages giving R its strength. Unfortunately, I sense that
the time demands of what is now a major software system are such that
communications (and tempers) are getting frayed. I urge attention to
this, and also to ideas of organizational behaviour and evolution, so we
keep R healthy. Those who know me will realize I'm willing to put in
time to act as the glue in building communications.
I'm also a bit surprised nobody has mentioned the mirrors -- if the
mirror repositories choose, say, the Alternative R Archive Network,
which might also include sweater patterns, the effectiveness of the CRAN
system would be crippled.
John Nash
