Hi Elaine! I'm terribly sorry for not trying harder to contact you earlier, and for announcing my intentions to the list. I'm really appreciative of all the great work you've put into the Perl Timeline up to now. See below for the rest of my response.
On Sunday 27 April 2008, 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. I agree that advocacy@perl.org can become a bit political, especially since I've joined. > In spite of having given birth and spending > the past 18 months being a mum Congratulations! > 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. Well, I googled for your name: http://www.google.com/search?q=elaine+ashton&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 The most conclusive link I could find was http://search.cpan.org/~hfb/Date-Christmas-1.02/ which pointed me to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which bounced. Please try to use the pause.perl.org interface to point it to your newer address. I admit I haven't tried too hard, and I apologise for that. > 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. Sorry again. > > "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. You are right that using a wiki for it may open up a wealth of problems. I've witnessed such problems first-hand with some of my experiences on en.wikipedia.org, he.wikipedia.org, perl.net.au, and other wikis. > > Send me something I can look at and update the site with, otherwise > I'm simply not interested. You are right, I will. I should note that because of the conversion to XHTML 1.1 (valid now) etc. the patch will be very huge, so I'll just send you the new file. You can find it here: http://www.shlomifish.org/perl-timeline-temp/PerlTimeline.html I can send a patch from the first XHTML'ed version to the present version if you'd prefer. I can also send the Subversion dump of the repository I've been maintaining the HTML of the page in. > > As ever, don't talk about a patch, send me a patch and we'll see. I see. Again, I'm sorry. The wiki'ing idea was not mine, but I found it a bit tempting. All that was said, I would still to contribute to the new Perl history effort on the TPF wiki. While I highly commend you for the effort you've put into the existing timeline, it's highly possible a collaboration between Andy Lester, Chris Dolan and I (and other people of the Perl community) can yeild something substantial and under a more usable licensing terms. We are going to respect the copyrights ownership of the existing timeline and not re-use material from there directly, without your permission. Thanks, best regards, and sorry again, Shlomi Fish ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Rethinking CPAN - http://xrl.us/bjn7p The bad thing about hardware is that it sometimes work and sometimes doesn't. The good thing about software is that it's consistent: it always does not work, and it always does not work in exactly the same way.
