Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The language group has generated the vast majority of the 100+ RFCs in > existence, and is suffering under the deluge of 100-200 posts a day. I > would prefer this to be down around 50, but no luck yet :-/ Part of the > problem seems to be timezone related... the lag time between an RFC > being posted, me seeing the thread and realising the need for a sublist, > and Ask actually creating that list, means that you get 2-3 days of > traffic before it can be moved elsewhere, and a single RFC can easily > generate 50 posts. I think that all this... > > Several sublists have been spawned, but we're not sure how successful > they are yet. They seem to have low traffic, which could mean that they > simply aren't working (because nobody wants to use them), or that they > *are* working (because the people previously discussing the subject on > -language weren't deeply interested and just joining in for the hell of > it, and the sublists scare off the dilletantes). I think that an NNTP > interface would be *seriously* useful to the sublists. ... is the cause for this. All the discussion is taking place in the master list before the sublists are spawned. You can only express the opinion that foo is not bar and never should be so many times. (To be fair, I collapse my lists, and don't pay attention to what is posted to what list.) -- Bryan C. Warnock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:23:04PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OK, weekly report. Ugh. Shouldn't these to go -announce as well? Tim.
Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000
> "TB" == Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: TB> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:23:04PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> OK, weekly report. Ugh. TB> Shouldn't these to go -announce as well? I thought we agreed that they percolate upward. The containing WG would report the results upward. -- Chaim FrenkelNonlinear Knowledge, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote: > > ... is the cause for this. All the discussion is taking place in the > master list before the sublists are spawned. You can only express the > opinion that foo is not bar and never should be so many times. I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something like: -io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles -subs = ALL sub/method/func issues, like lvalue subs -strict = ALL lexical/global variable scoping issues -objects = ALL OO and module issues -flow = ALL flow/threading issues -errors = ALL error handling issues -datetime = ALL date/time/etc issue The general language list can still be an "else" case. This is already in place, I'm just proposing these be made permanent, and that the RFC author choose a sublist for their discussion. General stuff like "chomp changes" should still go to the main list probably. If a person doesn't care or trusts others' judgment, they only have to join those discussions they want to contribute to. If they see a really juicy RFC come out on perl6-announce, they can always join the sublist then. Anyways, that's my input. I don't think topical lists have or will be effective because, as Bryan notes, most discussions are largely finished by the time a sublist is created. Plus, with permanent sublists people can establish a feel for the group and perhaps provide better input. -Nate
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
> "NW" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NW> I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent
NW> sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something
NW> like:
NW>-io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles
NW>-subs = ALL sub/method/func issues, like lvalue subs
NW>-strict = ALL lexical/global variable scoping issues
NW>-objects = ALL OO and module issues
NW>-flow = ALL flow/threading issues
NW>-errors = ALL error handling issues
NW>-datetime = ALL date/time/etc issue
i see problems with overlapping areas. I/O callbacks fall under both io
and flow IMO. some of the error handling like dying deep in eval and
$SIG{DIE} also fall under error and flow.
but in any case why am i still seeing error stuff if i am not subscribed
to that list? people are not reading the relevent new list posts and
moving their email threads (the third overload of threads!) to the
proper list. i agree with skud, there is too much on the main language list.
uri
--
Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page --- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net -- http://www.northernlight.com
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
> i see problems with overlapping areas. I/O callbacks fall under both io
> and flow IMO. some of the error handling like dying deep in eval and
> $SIG{DIE} also fall under error and flow.
True. But it should be up to the RFC author to choose the relevant list.
I think RFC authors have been pretty good at this in general if there's
an established sublist (-io and -subs have several unsolicited RFC's)
> but in any case why am i still seeing error stuff if i am not subscribed
> to that list? people are not reading the relevent new list posts and
> moving their email threads (the third overload of threads!) to the
> proper list. i agree with skud, there is too much on the main language list.
It's hard to keep up. That's why some type of permanent list structure
is good. Right now, people are hopping in 500 emails behind, replying to
something in the middle of the stream, and only later reading the
"please move this to -errors" post.
Stuff started on the proper sublist, though, has done a good job of
staying there overall.
-Nate
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:38:33PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> i see problems with overlapping areas. I/O callbacks fall under both io
> and flow IMO. some of the error handling like dying deep in eval and
> $SIG{DIE} also fall under error and flow.
This is true, and inevitable. But IMHO it'd be a helluva lot easier to
follow two lists (error, flow) than the uber-language-list. So while
I don't think sublists are a perfect solution, they're a better solution
than not sublisting.
Wasn't somebody going to set up a news server? Newsgroups and
crossposting, yeah, that's the ticket.
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent >sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something >like: > > -io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles > -subs = ALL sub/method/func issues, like lvalue subs > -strict = ALL lexical/global variable scoping issues > -objects = ALL OO and module issues > -flow = ALL flow/threading issues > -errors = ALL error handling issues > -datetime = ALL date/time/etc issue Yup, this works for me. Ask, can you change the deadlines on these lists to be "as long as it takes" or similar? K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/ Open Source development, consulting and solutions Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
At 04:12 PM 8/17/00 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > >I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent > >sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something > >like: > > > > -io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles > > -subs = ALL sub/method/func issues, like lvalue subs > > -strict = ALL lexical/global variable scoping issues > > -objects = ALL OO and module issues > > -flow = ALL flow/threading issues > > -errors = ALL error handling issues > > -datetime = ALL date/time/etc issue > >Yup, this works for me. > >Ask, can you change the deadlines on these lists to be "as long as it >takes" or similar? Sorry I didn't chime in earlier, but I would like to say that I prefer published deadlines. Reason: people will talk for as long as you give 'em. However long a meeting is scheduled for, that's how long it will take. We're already reaching the point of diminishing returns in several discussions IMHO; if we let 'em drag on forever they may turn ugly. Besides, the -internals folk are waiting to see what they need to get going on. And I would think we'd want a time when we knew Larry could get going on the RFCs without wondering whether something else was going to romp out of the starting gate. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 11:15:40PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote: > >Sorry I didn't chime in earlier, but I would like to say that I prefer >published deadlines. Reason: people will talk for as long as you give >'em. However long a meeting is scheduled for, that's how long it will >take. We're already reaching the point of diminishing returns in several >discussions IMHO; if we let 'em drag on forever they may turn ugly. > >Besides, the -internals folk are waiting to see what they need to get going >on. And I would think we'd want a time when we knew Larry could get going >on the RFCs without wondering whether something else was going to romp out >of the starting gate. Well, there is a "hard" deadline set in the Project Plan / Roadmap, of September 30th. K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/ Open Source development, consulting and solutions Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
>>-io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles >>-subs = ALL sub/method/func issues, like lvalue subs >>-strict = ALL lexical/global variable scoping issues >>-objects = ALL OO and module issues >>-flow = ALL flow/threading issues >>-errors = ALL error handling issues >>-datetime = ALL date/time/etc issue Can I please have a volunteer to chair a -regexp sublist? K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/ Open Source development, consulting and solutions Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994
Re: Permanent sublists (was Re: Language WG report, August 16th 2000)
On Wed., Aug 16, 2000, Nate Wiger wrote: > is good. Right now, people are hopping in 500 emails behind, replying to > something in the middle of the stream, and only later reading the > "please move this to -errors" post. Actually, I'm 1283 emails behind, to be exact. And that's just counting -language, no subgroups. jdb
