Elaine,
If some of your anger was inspired by my comments, I apologize. I
had no intention to insult you or your work.
My suggestion of a wiki was not to make light of the amount of work
of the existing timeline, but instead to recognize that amount of
work by suggesting that no one person could realistically maintain
that history moving forward. The gap from Jan 2002 to present
implied to me that you had burned out on the history and had no
interest in maintaining it -- my bad. I was unaware that you had
been seeking maintainers "for a very long time".
I also apologize for my stream-of-consciousness comments that started
with "ugh" and ended with me acknowledging the value of the
timeline. The "ugh" came from reading 1969-1986, which seemed to
have minimal relevance to Perl. I should have written that more
tactfully, making my respect more clear.
Chris
On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Elaine Ashton wrote:
Oh, god, someone did a bad thing and forwarded me an email from
this infernal list that I had been blissfully unsubscribed to
for...well, a really long time now. In spite of having given birth
and spending the past 18 months being a mum I have not completely
lost my character so those who are sensitive to my usual missives
should probably brace yourselves.
Firstly, I have waited for a very long time for maintainers to step
up for a number of things, including the history project. Perhaps I
should write a manual with RULE NUMBER ONE: DON'T INSULT THE
PROJECT YOU ARE WANTING TO ASSUME CONTROL OF AND CLAIM YOU TRIED TO
GET IN TOUCH WITH ONE OF THE MOST EASILY FOUND PEOPLE ON THE NET
BUT SOMEHOW MANAGED TO FAIL. What, do I have to expain this to you
idiots? Do you bitch about a meal from your mother and offer to
recook it, too? Not to mention, my email address is everywhere (and
plenty of other people manage to find me daily) and while I
probably should have your address on a kill filter, I don't as I
have better things to do these days.
"In any case, I first want to get the legal status of the document
cleared
before we wikify it."
NO.
I'd welcome an update to the HTML if it has fallen out of valid
HTML. I'd welcome updated links for dead ones and I'd welcome a new
version with events up to the current time. I would not be
interested currently in opening it up to a wiki to a throng of
people who either have an agenda or no idea just how much time it
takes/took to prepare a document like this.
Send me something I can look at and update the site with, otherwise
I'm simply not interested.
As ever, don't talk about a patch, send me a patch and we'll see.
Grumpily,
e.
