On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Steve Fink wrote:
> Alan Burlison wrote:
> > Having done so I have been very happy to see the wide consensus
> > that seems to be appearing.
>
> Huh? I'd say quite the opposite. I expected more. There are many, many
> people who use perl. Anybody who uses anything will come u
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> > It would have been nicer to institute this policy from the start,
> > but no one expected to get 200 RFCs in just over one month, either.
>
> Indeed - I think everyone was astonished by the rate at which they
> appeared. I just hope the code is
J. David Blackstone writes:
> Wait. Does a good idea have to go away simply because the person
> who originally proposed it no longer has interest? What if several
> people are interested, but the original author has totally skipped out
> on Perl6 development, and the other interested people d
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:49:52PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> > Presumably the discarding will be heralded with an announcement on the
> > mailing list, as well as a note to the maintainer. The interested
> > parties should see this and yell.
>
> Just wanted to get that stated explici
> I believe in having small control teams (2-3 people) assigned to
> each issue; these teams act as moderators for whatever they are
> implementing. These teams consist entirely of proven people. Give
> the control teams whatever they need to function: read-only + public
> mailing lists, etc.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:49:52PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:34:55PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> >
> > Presumably the discarding will be heralded with an announcement on the
> > mailing list, as well as a note to the maintainer. The interested
> > pa
Nat "Is pm for Project Management or Perl Module" Torkington wrote:
> You're right that it's very unclear how RFCs will be accepted or
> rejected. It's become obvious from the variety of RFCs proposed that
> Perl cannot be designed by committee. That's why there's one person
> designated as the
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:34:55PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
>> Wait. Does a good idea have to go away simply because the person
>> who originally proposed it no longer has interest? What if several
>> people are interested, but the original author has totally skipped out
>> on Perl6
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:34:55PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> Wait. Does a good idea have to go away simply because the person
> who originally proposed it no longer has interest? What if several
> people are interested, but the original author has totally skipped out
> on Perl6 devel
Adam Turoff wrote:
> All of the RFCs have mailing lists associated with them, and all of
> the mailing lists have chairpeople leading discussion.
>
> Why not ask these chairpeople to start a Last Call process, whereby
> any unmaintained RFCs can be marked as "unmaintained and withdrawn"
> by the r
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I hope many more people take
> note of your gutsy lead and follow it.
> I'm sure that your mail will have put you high up on the list of
> 'promising fresh blood' :-) Please don't take my original commnents as
> being directed at you personally - your
Well, THAT was certainly specific, insightful, politely phrased, and
filled with pertinent advice on how to remedy the problem!
Alan, you're right about certain things...it's important that talented,
experienced people have the final say over the final product. However,
most of the problems in e
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but I really can't stomach watching this slow motion train
> wreck any longer, so good luck and goodbye.
Plonk.
--
John Porter
Adam Turoff wrote:
> From this, I can extract these action items:
>
> 1) Set up p6 development like other open source projects, where there
>is a "core team" responsible for the progress of Perl6 or a component
>of Perl6. These people have write access to the source repository
>(wha
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Well, as I suggested once before (but it was probably premature at the
> time), I think people should start retracting RFC's that they don't
> think are wins, or that the general consensus is against. I'm going to
> retract 3 of my own today.
Good for you. That is a very c
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I don't believe in magic. I'm an engineer by profession, not an
> astrologer. However, I will predict endless arguments when some of the
> less than coherent proposals are rejected.
The RFC process was intended to bring out both
> > What we're doing about that:
> > * pushing the output through Larry
> > [Yes, this addresses only part of the problem. Any suggestions for
> > other ways to solve this?]
>
> The RFC mountain is way, way too high to be climbed by just one person,
> let alone the output of the various mailing
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Thanks for that grim view, Alan. I've been looking around for someone
> to act as the Devil's Advocate and say what might go wrong, so I was
> happy to see this.
Glad to be of service ;-)
> I agree that the current brainstorming is chaotic. I feel like that's
> the
Andy Dougherty wrote:
> I think the chaotic brainstorming on -language has been very necessary. We
> need a forum that encourages new radical ideas. Sure, most of them
> probably won't pan out or prove worthwhile, but I'm hopeful that there
> will ultimately be a few new things in perl6 that gr
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Unfortunately the greatest volume on the various p6 sublists tends to be
> coming from the least experienced people. The comments based on common
> sense and long experience tend to be lost in the hubbub of uninformed
> noise.
I think the chaotic bra
Thanks for that grim view, Alan. I've been looking around for someone
to act as the Devil's Advocate and say what might go wrong, so I was
happy to see this.
Your message seems to have two points: that the current brainstorming
phase is so chaotic that it's hard to see how anything good can come
21 matches
Mail list logo
