On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:30:19PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> And PR is a function of people listening to people that they know (and
> presumably respect). As much as we make summaries, et al, it is Larry that
> they primarily know. And Larry saying something will get it put on slashdot.
Yea, amen. But still, some buzz is better than no buzz.
> And to keep people interest from flagging, make submssions to this *approved*
> RFC list as they come in, and make it fairly often (one URL at a time).
Bluntly, I think this is something that's been quite a failing of the RFC
process. If we had more indication of how Larry's mind was going as we
went along, that could have had quite an important influence on the types
of RFCs that got written. It would also allow us to build on top of RFCs
that we knew had been "approved", instead of having to build very flat or hope
that a given RFC would be OKed.
But then, having the whole design come out at once could also generate huge
amounts of interest.
> Make a running commentary about why a feature made it, and why a feature
> didn't, and if a feature didn't make it, tell why and how one can work
> around it if it didn't. Link RFC's together and make it interesting to read.
> Make a story out of it, make people want to upgrade to it. etc. etc. etc.
I'm already planning on doing something like that for the internals; it
shouldn't be too hard to extend it to the language as well.
> I keep looking on use.perl.org, and keep hoping that it becomes something
> like this, but it hasn't - not yet at least.
sourcetalk used to do something vaguely similar for Perl5. I should start
that up again. Anyone got a machine with a slashcode installation?
--
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
