--- David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we allow the core developers some peace, while giving the community
FREE
voice? Free being, if it's perl related, it's valid. Free by any other
definition is also a farce.
IMHO, the fact that this list is not in the midst of a huge flame war
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, David Grove wrote:
Absolutely it's appropriate. They think I'm paranoid and the only one who sees
the danger. Relatively few people speak openly about it for fear of getting the
same beatings I get on a regular basis. Frankly I think it's important for
these guys just
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:31 AM, John Barnette
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
D'you think it's a possibility to provide read-only access to the lists
for interested parties?
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of Perl 6's
giving voice to the perl
David Grove wrote:
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
where we were before, with a core group free to sit back unchallenged on their
complacency and let Perl go to rot. To accomplish a
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Read-only access is a must for any list like this, and with more
DS than just a web archive. I'm sure Ask will set things up so anyone
DS that likes can subscribe to the read-only version of the list.
that was in my original post about
David Grove wrote:
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
where we were before, with a core group free to sit back unchallenged
on their complacency and let Perl go to rot.
What does
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:59 PM, Peter Buckingham
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
David Grove wrote:
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
where we were before, with a core group
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 02:20:23PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
the lists should also be archived in the usual ways. having search
functions (on the web?) would be a good addition. development lists many
times will note an idea early on and forget it later. i have refound
some good nuggets by
"Dan" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan A better analogy is that Larry's the Bishop and Chief
Dan Architect, while the rest of us are engineers, sectional
Dan architects, artisans, craftsmen, journeymen, and apprentices,
Dan working to build up a cathedral. (And yes,
Is anyone here familiar with the behind-the-scenes process and politics of
the Linux development community?
If I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I have the details right),
when Linux was being developed, Linus came up with a skeletal OS based off
of MINIX, then he turned it loose.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, David Grove wrote:
[public voting]
Good? Bad?
as someone who in a former life was part of creating news groups and
such I can only say bad things about "public voting" in an
environment like this. It just doesn't work and just doesn't measure
anything useful.
If you can
At 12:31 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
"Dan" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan A better analogy is that Larry's the Bishop and Chief
Dan Architect, while the rest of us are engineers, sectional
Dan architects, artisans, craftsmen, journeymen, and
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.
Anyone have better suggestions?
I don't know that this is _better_, but...perhaps we could have
the lists that
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:51 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
Yep, this is my only concern. It should be reasonably easy to say "I
really want to help" and get on the closed lists. Perhaps the best way
of making sure the lists don't bloat into "everyone has an opinion"
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I was going to suggest a criteria for initial membership of having
authored at least a CPAN module or core patch, but I'm not sure. It
seems reasonable that someone shouldn't be programming core if they
haven't really done anything big in Perl before (and given it back),
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:34:33PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
is there some way we can duplicate/adapt
their process so that we can simultaneously put to rest both David Grove's
concerns about elitism and Dan Sugalski's concerns about lack of planning?
No.
--
Everything that can ever be
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:26 PM, Andy Dougherty
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
[An offlist request for clarification, though I invite you to follow-up to
the perl6-meta list if you deem appropriate]
Absolutely it's appropriate. They think I'm paranoid and the only one who sees
the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the closed lists
Yep, this is my only concern. It should be reasonably easy to say "I
really want to help" and get on the closed lists. Perhaps the best way
of making sure the lists don't bloat into "everyone has an opinion"
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:11:54PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
Perhaps, then, there should be one more officer, chosen by Larry himself.
This person would be responsible for collecting public opinions and
representing them to the developer group, who needs to follow that guidance
as long as
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:11:54pm -0500, David Grove wrote:
They think I'm paranoid and the only one who sees the danger.
Relatively few people speak openly about it for fear of getting the
same beatings I get on a regular basis. Frankly I think it's
important for these guys just to realize
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:33 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
David Grove wrote:
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
where we were before, with a core group
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:38:17PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see a problem yet. If Perl were
somehow being "taken over", then I expect the Perl community (at the
very least, one David Grove :-) to be up in arms about it.
And then they could fork,
David Grove wrote:
To those who don't know the old argument, which out of respect for the list and
the listmaster I won't detail
Frankly, I think not knowing the details of the "old argument" makes it
more difficult to understand your stance.
Is there an email archive of said argument
"David" == David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David The community need that I _know_ is being ignored is the
David ability to have a perl that's not taking a dive toward being
David slopped all over with the four-colored flag. Community interest
David must take a higher precedence in the
At 02:11 PM 10/10/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
However what I was responding to was the shutting out of anyone who
doesn't agree with the politics of the perl elite, and wants to mouth off
from time to time (me). You sort of have to read between the lines on this
one, Peter, because this is an
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:40:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
You're being too specific. There is no assumption possible that perl
developers will do *anything*. Ever. This is a volunteer community. Any
other assumption you might make is unfounded.
David also seems to miss the irony that
At 10:48 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:40:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
You're being too specific. There is no assumption possible that perl
developers will do *anything*. Ever. This is a volunteer community. Any
other assumption you might make is
At 11:12 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 06:01:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
"General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling
council" thing to contend with. "What
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:27 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
Consider:
"Public Opinion": Hey, we need Perl 6 stable in three weeks.
Coders: But, uhm, we haven't started coding yet.
Consider:
Microsoft: We need Perl by April 15th
Head Cheese: Ok, sure
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:31 AM 10/10/00 -0600, John Barnette wrote:
D'you think it's a possibility to provide read-only access to the lists
for interested parties? I'm certainly not competent enough to
contribute to a core discussion, for example, but I have no doubt
Peter Buckingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that it is important that the developers have some free method
of communication without being bogged down by insignificant details.
While I definitely agree with this, and I find the idea of focused,
read-only lists for core developers a
Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anyone here familiar with the behind-the-scenes process and politics
of the Linux development community?
Not heavily familiar, but I know some details. (My knowledge is that of
someone who's been following linux-kernel sporadically for a year or two
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:23:07PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Having had cause to root around in the archives of perl6 and perl5 lists,
can I suggest that we use the system that perl5-porters is archived on in
preference to the system that the perl6 lists use (MHonArc, apparently).
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:42:48PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:31 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
"Dan" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan A better analogy is that Larry's the Bishop and Chief
Dan Architect, while the rest of us are engineers, sectional
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.
Anyone have better suggestions?
Instead of group-writable and world-readable, how about group-writable
and
Dan Sugalski writes:
"General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling
council" thing to contend with. "What Larry says" is best, but what happens
if he doesn't, or gets hit by a bus at some
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.
Anyone have better suggestions?
I don't know that this is _better_, but...perhaps we could have
the lists that you
At 07:09 PM 10/10/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
"General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling
council" thing to contend with. "What Larry says" is best, but what
At 06:58 PM 10/10/00 -0500, Tad McClellan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:42:48PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:31 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
"Dan" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan A better analogy is that Larry's the Bishop and Chief
Dan
At 05:59 PM 10/10/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:27 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
Consider:
"Public Opinion": Hey, we need Perl 6 stable in three weeks.
Coders: But, uhm, we haven't started coding yet.
Consider:
Microsoft: We need
At 09:04 PM 10/10/00 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.
Anyone have better suggestions?
Instead of group-writable
At 04:51 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:23:07PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Having had cause to root around in the archives of perl6 and perl5 lists,
can I suggest that we use the system that perl5-porters is archived on in
preference to the system that
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Works. We still have those Quantum Ninja that we're holding in reserve for
Damian... :)
Yeah... they're vicious, too - they kick ass in constant time. ;-)
-Nate
David Grove wrote:
The
community need that I _know_ is being ignored is the ability to have a perl
that's not taking a dive toward being slopped all over with the four-colored
flag.
David, please, you must be more specific and less idiomatic. I
don't even know what the four-colored flag
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 06:01:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
"General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling
council" thing to contend with. "What Larry says" is best, but what
happens
if he
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:10:57PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
Perl 6 Public Relations - brian d foy
Public relations? Uh, who is the Perl 6 information officer?
I don't have the faintest idea.
--
"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."
"David" == David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David If the "public say" is limited to an RFC freeforall, then
David closed off to let the elite go to work, then the whole
David "public say" policy is a farce an order of magnitude worse
David than the "great perl merge". Either
"NT" == Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NT I've heard people asking for RFCs to continue after the brainstorming.
NT What do we want to do that we need RFCs for? Design? Implementation?
NT Working out the fine details of behaviour?
well, this is the right time to open
48 matches
Mail list logo
