On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:43:25PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote: : I do feel strongly that we need some sort of solution to this so that Perl : 6 is not merely an outstanding framework that leaves all domain-specific : extensions to the end user.
Perl 6 as a language doesn't address this (except to keep the library namespaces precise and accurate), but that doesn't mean it won't get addressed or that we don't want it addressed. We're aiming for an ecology more like Linux, where we distribute the kernel, and others build distributions around it, and those distributions are designed to make it easier for various classes of end users. In any case, I'm certain the community will also make sure that something CPANishly downloadable is there, since no distribution can possibly guess right all the time. But a single editorial board is not scalable over the long haul. We'll eventually need multiple such boards that compete among various perceived and real ecological niches. We can start with one distribution as long as it is explicitly realized that anyone can fork it at any time, for any reason. Then let Darwin take over, and see what the service economy does with it. Now, it might well be that a Perl standards body could specify a mininum suggested set of modules for any distribution to enhance interoperability, but we haven't got to that point yet, I don't think. Someone with an organizational bent could get a running start to come up with such a editorial center, but setting standards out ahead of practice is rarely the optimal approach. And right now, we would, at best, be guessing from Perl 5 "best practice". Maybe that's good enough to start with, if we can get any two people to agree on what the Perl 5 best practices are. :) Anyway, that's the reasoning behind supplying as little as possible with the P6 kernel. We don't want anyone mistaking it for a distribution in the first place, nor do we want us language lawyers to evolve into any kind of "official distribution board". Central planning doesn't scale over the long term. We should restrict our "federal" activities to those that help all the "states" get along with each other, at least well enough to avoid a civil war. Of course, as the U.S. proved at the beginning, when you fear a strong federal government it's possible to invent too weak a federal government. There's a balance in there somewhere that we're still trying to figure out... Larry
