On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 02:30:03PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes. Surprisingly familiar set of names, most I recognise from at least 10 > > years ago. > > > > Why aren't there new names? > > Likely the same reason(s) as 10 or more years ago. :) > > > (The breeding programme will take time to deliver results. Something needs > > to change in the meantime) > > Well, there have been a lot of words wasted on "Why aren't there more > women in $x?" for just as many years with just as little change and I > do think the correlation is meaningful if not causation. The breeding > programme does appear to be producing quite a few females so you'd > think there'd be more earnest investigation instead of believing the > world will be miraculously changed in a few years, but I'm not > optimistic such will be the case.
I was going to make some kind of actually relevant contribution, but as I am ill, it would probably come out all wrong. I'll try to remember to say something later if this doesn't kill me. dha -- David H. Adler - <[email protected]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Perl gives you enough rope to hang yourself and your neighbor. - Randal L. Schwartz
