On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 13:36, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > The main difference is that p6-docs is intended to move very narrowly > from topic to topic, in a roughly predetermined order, focusing on each
But not to move faster than the design of the language. > one until the more dedicated members start to bleed from the ears > and/or we're convinced we have *all* the answers we need from the > design team to completely describe the required Perl6 behavior. (Right Correct. To describe the required Perl6 behavior. Yes, that means you need to ask questions. Sometimes those questions may involve some hand-waving. Just please, *please* refrain from rampant p6l-ish speculation. > now, we're discussing primitive scalar types and values.) Then we > write the answers down, get it approved, and move on to the next > narrowly scoped topic. The discussion is moderated, and sometimes > tedious, if you're not interested in what's currently being discussed. No, I *am* interested in what's being discussed - the committing to stone (hopefully granite, but understandable if it's sandstone) of what's going to happen. What I'm not interested are the big brainstorming sessions - I simply don't have the time for them any more. (Nor will I in the foreseeable future. I can't even get back to the internals. )-: > > p6-lang is more of a free-for-all, where you can ask/propose stuff > regardless of what the current topic is. The discussion is more broad, > and distinctly _not_ structured. It's not a question of structure. I attend many meetings that are a highly structured waste of my time. :-) > > Neither p6l nor p6d have any inherent decision making capabilities; > those have been abrogated (willingly) to the design team. I certainly > expect the docs contributors to propose new ideas when/where > appropriate, just like p6l does. That's one of the reasons for going And that's where I take issue. If it's "just like p6l does", then do it on p6l. We ran into a similar scenario early on with the various p6-* lists, and more recently (and constantly) on p6i when broaching the subjects of Perl 6 versus Parrot. As you said, if the most active people are on both lists, then it shouldn't be a problem. The lists aren't supposed to be defined by their contributors, only by their contributions. > through things in excruciating detail, so we can find any potential > gotchas or places in which broader generalization may help. > > I would recommend posting to p6-documentation if you have an > issue/proposal with something the documentation project is currently > discussing, and p6-language if you have other random thoughts/questions > that p6d haven't gotten to yet. It's pretty much the same people, > after all. :-) Then why have two lists? Dammit, I need to quit asking rhetorical questions. Be kind to Piers. Be kind to the readers. Don't have separate but equal discussions in two different lists. Weed out the cruft, fill in the gaps. Interpolate, don't extrapolate. -- Bryan C. Warnock bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
