On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> As I stated in the original post, there is no reason *not* to keep the
> process open.
In an attempt to keep my previous message concise, I seem to have
neglected a few key points:
1) The RFC was a free-for-all brainstorming process. Intentionally.
2) RFCs were not intended to be the basis for designing the language
or describing/creating the implementation. They were intended to
collect comments on the aspects of Perl5 that should/could be fixed
in Perl6, or cool new features that cannot be reasonably added into
Perl5 but could be integrated into Perl6.
3) The RFC process was designed to be a limited call for ideas for Larry
to consider in a language design. The deadline was integral to the
process, and decided before RFC collection began.
> The RFC's would be a very good tool to sift discussions, let
> ideas flow, and not to revisit discussions in the future.
4) The RFCs have demonstrated that they are a very poor tool for
starting and continuing a productive, forward moving discussion.
Many of these issues are addressed in PDD 0 and Dan's thoughts
on the PDD process.
> [...] Dan Sugalski replied that the RFC
> process *was* going to be ongoing, so I was willing to have it hit the next
> 'cutoff'.
The formal (more-formal-than-p5p) document gathering process will
be ongoing. That is one reason (of many) why the PDD series is
emphatically not a series of RFCs. We made mistakes with the RFC
process and don't want to repeat them.
> Hell, I was going to make an RFC searcher, commentor, and so forth that could
> be re-used for PPD. I have no interest in making such an engine if PPD only
> exists, because I think that PPD by itself is clearly insufficient to handle
> the needs of the perl community.
There's nothing stopping you, but the RFC archive is closed and
will likely not be reopened (save for some minor details in the
queue). It's primary value is in cataloging a series of ideas of
what Perl could or should become.
> So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
The deadline was not artificial. It was by design.
> Do you
> really think that RFC's as they stand equal all the large issues that are going
> to be faced with perl6?
No, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> I'm sorry, but this pisses me off. You've got to realize that for a lot of us,
> our time is intermittent and our commitment can only be sporadic.
All the more reason to focus on building the future, not polishing the past.
> I, for one,
> was busy in transitioning to another state when the whole perl6 design thing
> happened last year. So hell - I plan on giving my contribution now. What's
> better - that, or twiddling our thumbs?
If you want to contribute, patch bleadperl, or make a contribution
on what we're doing today.
Z.
