On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:57:33 -0400, Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David, please take your conspiracies elsewhere. We've all heard
>them before and they are not germane to the Perl6 brainstorming
>process we find ourselves in right now.
Comrade Adam,
your behavior is in violation of di
Stephen Zander wrote:
> David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded
> David> on committee action, but on rebellion.
>
> I hope the irony of a proponent of non-profit motives holding up a
> rebellion that was exclusively profit-motive based in support of their
> argu
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 8:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Stephen Zander wrote:
> > > "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded
> > David> on committee action, but on rebellion.
Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded
> David> on committee action, but on rebellion.
> I hope the irony of a proponent of non-profit motives holding up a
> rebellion that was
> "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded
David> on committee action, but on rebellion.
I hope the irony of a proponent of non-profit motives holding up a
rebellion that was exclusively profit-motive based i
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Adam Turoff writes:
> > From this point forward, no new RFCs will be accepted until the RFC
> > submission process is reopened. Any new RFCs that are submitted
> > during this review phase will be held in limbo until new submissions
> > start up again.
> When were you
Adam Turoff writes:
> From this point forward, no new RFCs will be accepted until the RFC
> submission process is reopened. Any new RFCs that are submitted
> during this review phase will be held in limbo until new submissions
> start up again.
When were you thinking the RFC process would reopen
The time for brainstorming about what Perl6 can/should be is coming
to a close. As Nat posted recently, we are now entering a two week
review period in anticipation of Larry's language design.
>From this point forward, no new RFCs will be accepted until the RFC
submission process is reopened.
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:24:12 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>FWIW, I agree entirely with Randal here.
How do you prove that you're not paranoid, that "they" are really after
you? How do you prove that putting aluminum foil on your head really
helps?
You can't.
That said, I can only say one thing: if y
> It's possible you're speaking of one or more of the working group chairs,
> in which case your criticism may well be valid. This, though, is one of the
> cases where you may need to cope (as a volunteer project one needs to work
> with what's available). You can also speak to folks a step or two
> No conspiracy could be that well-oiled. Someone would have leaked it
> by now.
The community has been leaking like a sieve since July 1998. Want a complete
list?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:14:49PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> [...] I've no idea why Sarathy was deposed,
He wasn't.
> but I have a
> pretty big suspicion.
And a pretty big, well known problem with ActiveState.
> The problem is, I love Sarathy too. He's a hero,
Yes, he's pretty heroic.
> Something's gotta budge. I do not want to pay for the privilege of using a
> free
> language, and the "elite" need a damn good spaking to learn some manners to
> newbies (for at least the sake of advocacy) and people who don't use their
> own
> OS/Computer/Platform.
Being a Perl community new
13 matches
Mail list logo
