In another thread it seems @peakvalleytech was hoping for comments to this post.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding here due to different understandings of the term fork and the consequences of creating one? A classical understanding of the word might contain elements of burning all bridges and stopping co-operation with the forked project. This is obviously not what was suggested, given point two immediately following the suggestion.
Given the following quote, it seems to me that a fork is suggested for the purpose of aiding the discussion with reviewable code. A possibly younger interpretation of fork from the GitHub era, where forking is simply the uncoordinated approach allowing to throwing stuff on the wall to see if it sticks.
Please compare this with the following suggestion:
I believe there is common ground to be found here. My understanding is that @Matth78 is actually suggesting something with closer integration to the project than the unsanctioned clone that @peakvalleytech could already create at any time. Both sides seems to believe the conversation has gone on enough to require more concrete input in order to progress, but there is a difference of culture and approach? Would reviewable and discardable prototype code be welcome?