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 ju
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Glen wrote:
> IMHO, the fact that this list is not in the midst of a huge flame war over your
> e-mails and the fact that the so-called "elite" are responding constructively
> to your e-mails shows me that the community is at least heading in the right
> direction.
The commu
--- 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 flam
> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> what happens if for some reason I turn into a raving nutter
Dan> and won't go?
What you mean "will", Kimosabi? :)
--
Stephen
"Farcical aquatic ceremonies are no basis for a system of government!"
J. David Blackstone wrote:
>
> I'm talking a pair of lists for each working
> group/committee/whatever-you-want-to-call it.
Hm, kinda like the clp.misc/clp.moderated duality...
--
John Porter
Tad McClellan wrote:
> >
> > I was sort of hoping to go with Perl 6 Secred Decoder Rings, but a
> ^ ^
>
> Maybe it's not even a typo.
It's the past participle of "secre", although what that
means, I am not permitted to divulge.
> Is it an attempt t
David Grove wrote:
> No, offense, Dan. This isn't targeting you. I think you're starting to realize
> this now. At first, I think you thought I was.
Your paranoia knows no bounds.
--
John Porter
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 11:08:36PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> I repeat my suggestion from a couple of days ago that someone author
> a document on "how to politely fork your own development effort,"
I happen to be in the middle of an article on this very subject.
--
"The elde
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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. Fra
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
> 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
>>
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 fl
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
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 syste
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
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:
>Microsof
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
>
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
>
>
> 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 l
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 po
> 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
an
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 engineer
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).
> Perso
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 tw
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 r
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 d
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:51 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> 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
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
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.
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
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
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 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
> "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
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 somew
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,
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
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 real
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
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 a
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
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 in
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 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 opinio
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
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, a
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 a
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. Peop
> "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.
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
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 gro
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 "un
> "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
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
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 commun
At 08:20 AM 10/10/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Andy Dougherty 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 sugge
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 that my eventual
>Perl6 facility would be gre
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 that my eventual
Perl6 facility would be greatly increased by observing the dialogue.
Nathan Wig
Andy Dougherty 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?
>
> Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the clo
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?
Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the closed lists (and,
symmetrically, that it n
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, David Grove wrote:
> On Monday, October 09, 2000 7:12 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> wrote:
> How about an open, crossplatform mailing list for issues, with a
> mechanism on perl.org for public voting on larger issues.
In a volunteer organization, you can'
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:39:27 -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> If enough people really feel that worried about Perl falling into
>the hands of a few, then something like this might be a good idea.
I am quite happy with Perl as it is now, so having no say in how it
should evolve, doesn't reall
On Monday, October 09, 2000 9:39 PM, J. David Blackstone [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Let me make the following proposal: let's test your idea on itself.
> Require n nominations/seconds/whatever to bring your idea to a vote (n
> should be determined by you and Nat Torkington). If it does
At 10:36 PM 10/9/00 -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> > J. David Blackstone wrote:
> >>
> >> When they drafted the U.S. constitution, there was
> >> a huge debate over whether to base congressional representation on
> >> population per state or make each state equal. Both sides had a good
> >>
> J. David Blackstone wrote:
>>
>> When they drafted the U.S. constitution, there was
>> a huge debate over whether to base congressional representation on
>> population per state or make each state equal. Both sides had a good
>> claim to the other being unfair; giving a smaller state (Rhode Is
J. David Blackstone wrote:
>
> When they drafted the U.S. constitution, there was
> a huge debate over whether to base congressional representation on
> population per state or make each state equal. Both sides had a good
> claim to the other being unfair; giving a smaller state (Rhode Island,
>
This proposal has some good thoughts. Cut me some slack for not
being completely supportive of it; in my country, when they allowed
the public to ask the elite candidates for office any question they
wanted, the favorite question was "Do you wear boxers or briefs?"
> How about an open, crossp
On Monday, October 09, 2000 7:12 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove writes:
> > There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no?
>
> Nobody's suggesting complete quiet.
>
> What we're seeing is the fundamental conflict of:
> - the need for a coherent d
David Grove writes:
> There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no?
Nobody's suggesting complete quiet.
What we're seeing is the fundamental conflict of:
- the need for a coherent design meaning that very few people control
the design
- the need for openness and public involve
On Monday, October 09, 2000 3:22 PM, Stephen Zander [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> The lack of difference between perl and Perl has been the greatest
> cause of unease, disquiet and the disenfranchisement of parts of the
> Perl community because it's impossible to talk about one without
> invo
> "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 merg
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."
On Monday, October 09, 2000 12:22 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > I realize that's hard to do, and "core" developers get swamped, but
> > without a public voice
>
>Perl 6 Public Relations - brian d foy
>
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> I realize that's hard to do, and "core" developers get swamped, but
> without a public voice
Perl 6 Public Relations - brian d foy
The public relations side of development relays important
events and happenings
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> All else aside, I feel that it is important to keep Perl6 open to the
> public in all respects and in all phases.
You're right, which is why Perl 6 *is* open to the public. Anyone can
contribute their ideas or code. But someone has
David Grove wrote:
>
> Closing out the public sounds like what this is about, and that's very
> Perl5ish,
Well, everything you read is filtered through your own prejudices.
What Dan et al. are concerned about is basic engineering principles.
Imagine if every commuter who drives across the Wood
On Monday, October 09, 2000 1:17 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> At 04:13 PM 10/8/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >I've heard people asking for RFCs to continue after the brainstorming.
> >What do we want to do that we need RFCs for? Design? Implementation?
> >Working out
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 06:38 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> the second part is internals. not to take anything from dan, but i see a
>> bottom up approach being very useful here.
DS> I disagree. This is too big a project to manage that way.
At 06:38 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>the second part is internals. not to take anything from dan, but i see a
>bottom up approach being very useful here.
I disagree. This is too big a project to manage that way. If we do it we're
setting ourselves up for an enormous amount of trouble l
At 04:13 PM 10/8/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>I've heard people asking for RFCs to continue after the brainstorming.
>What do we want to do that we need RFCs for? Design? Implementation?
>Working out the fine details of behaviour?
What I'd like to see is the internals design and implemen
> "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 o
81 matches
Mail list logo
