Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
> > who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting
up
> > the RFC process.
>
> I'm trying to say this carefully, but the first few days of the process
> were
> conducted in an atmosphere of excitement and determination, which ended
up
> giving the impression that it was rather fixed and you had to either
agree
> with it or feel uncomfortable. We are having separate mailing lists! We
are
> having an RFC process! There didn't seem to be very much in the way of
> flexibility there.
>
> And, come on, Nat, 300 RFCs later, you can't really say we haven't had
the
> chance to re-evaluate and re-adjust. Have we done so?
Yes, we have. I've watched uncle Nat struggle over this and several of the
issues facing the "policies" of Perl 6. With all the effort he put in just
to make things kosher from my own fears (emphasis on that if you know me),
I'd say he's done more than a damn good job at trying to please everybody
and come up with one helluva solution (and everyone else involved).
> > And that's what frustrates me. In reality, it's highly premature for
> > people to be saying we're doomed, but the article doesn't give that
> > impression at all.
>
> No, it says that the way we organised the RFC process is suboptimal.
It's
> a bit of a leap from there to "we're doomed".
Go to Russia and see if you can move from communist oligarchy to
capitalist democracy in as little time. Progress is being made, and it's
_tremendous_ progress, and progress in a superlatively positive direction.
I don't think there's any disagreement that the current RFC process needs
improvement. Didn't Larry mention that too? That doesn't mean that it was
horrible, just ready for its next step in its own evolution.
