On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:27:28 -0500, "Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apprentice Tasks
>
> Any task vaguely Perl related can be apprenticed out. Here is a sample
> list:
>
> - Documentation, both internal and external, including, for instance,
> programming guides, DDDs, user docum
[Replies to perl5-porters, because it's more immediate.]
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:00:06AM +0100, H . Merijn Brand wrote:
> Testing, plain.
> i.e. I'm now pretty involved in p5p, and cannot spare time for p6, though
> I'm following most of it. What I could offer is testing the `current state'
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:08:35PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Be available. Don't give a task, then disappear until its due, accept it,
> then disappear again. Answer questions. Check the work. Give feedback.
This is very important IMHO; especially for apprentices that really
need some
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:08:35PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Be available. Don't give a task, then disappear until its due,
accept
> it,
> > then disappear again. Answer questions. Check the work. Give
feedback.
>
> This is very
On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> In order to serve and assist future "apprentices" or maintainers, the
> communication between the two should be public (unless private on
> purpose), or somehow publicly available. Given the undesirability of
> having ten gazillion mailing lists, and likel
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> > In order to serve and assist future "apprentices" or maintainers, the
> > communication between the two should be public (unless private on
> > purpose), or somehow publicly available. Given the undesi
Today around 11:06am, David Grove hammered out this masterpiece:
: Does brainbench still have free tests for Perl? Maybe that's
: something to look into, and maybe since it's a purely volunteer
: effort if they are now charging for their perl tests, they might
: make an exception... I'll look int
David Grove writes:
> What does it take to be considered of "master" status in a certain area
Basically this: if you're good at doing something and want/need
someone to help with it, then you should be able to ask for an
apprentice.
I'd say not to get too hung up on "master" and "apprentice", as
On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> Ok, it sounds like a plan. Where do we start? By creating a registry of
> current tasks and masters, then fighting for apprenticeship?
I don't know. I've gotten a few good responses on the general idea and
process, but little-to-no feedback on the indivi
David Grove writes:
> 3. We seem to be creating a class system. Nate, this is one that I can see
> as a must-be, so I'm not going in _that_ direction. But let's still
> consider ourselves equal, regardless of rank, ok? Otherwise, perl 6 is a
> wash, because it's just as much about community as it
Don't miss the point. I'm not proposing to look for masters using
brainbench, but for viable apprentices that way. Basic Perl skill seems a
certian criterium for candidacy, as would basic c skill for some areas.
I've also ranked master there, but only in Perl, not perlguts. I've
proposed using the
Today around 11:55am, David Grove hammered out this masterpiece:
: Don't miss the point. I'm not proposing to look for masters using
: brainbench, but for viable apprentices that way. Basic Perl skill seems a
: certian criterium for candidacy, as would basic c skill for some areas.
: I've also ra
David Grove wrote:
> Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written by
> apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's always been
> a huge criticism of the perldocs. That's not grunt work. That's proper
> allocation of duties to the best suited personnel for
Steve Fink wrote:
>
> David Grove wrote:
>
> > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written by
> > apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too.
>
> Except it's a particular duty that nobody really likes to perform.
One thing that might be really cool is if ther
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> One thing that might be really cool is if there was a way to get some
> tech documentation apprentices on-board just to specialize in perldocs.
> For example, people out of school interested in tech documentation but
> needing somethi
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>David Grove writes:
>> What does it take to be considered of "master" status in a certain area
>
>Basically this: if you're good at doing something and want/need
>someone to help with it, then you should be able to ask for an
>apprentice.
>
>I'd say n
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:05:43AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
>
> > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written by
> > apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's always been
> > a huge criticism of the perldocs. That's not grunt work.
Documentation of Perl6 Internals, written by Apprentices and approved by
their Mentors -- that would be *excellent* :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tech documentation (Re: Perl Apprenticeship Program)
.
. other (good) stuff ommitted
.
> needing s
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 05:10:22PM +, David Grove wrote:
> Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bah. *I* like documenting.
But what do you like documenting based on?
Uncommented code?
Code with comments?
Code with comments plus some level of skeletal documentation from the
pro
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
> >
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> newsgroups might be a good place to start. Personal expe
> B. The "master" / "apprentice" relationship is just that - it depends
>how the people in question relate. As a potential "master" I am all
>too aware that I am not skilled in teaching - usually because I
don't
>know what is obvious vs what is obscure - so anyone "taught" by me
>
> > will have to do some proofreading (also tedious) no matter what. If
the
>
> Bah. *I* like proofreading. Certainly for typos and English
construction
> if I can forget everything other than the last 2 sentences I read.
Masters have no reason to spellcheck. I mean they'll have to proofread
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> newsgroups might be a good place to start. Personal experience shows
> that this could be a
At 04:29 PM 12/5/00 -0500, Kirrily Skud Robert wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> > these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> > newsgroups might be a good pl
Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:05:43AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> > > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written
by
> > > apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's
always
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
