Your comment suggest you have a particular perspective or point of view.
Without providing a some context I'm afraid I'm going to find some of your
> * just release perl 6 now and move on
This is one of those confusing comments. There isn't a single p6
implementation attempt which is feature complete. How can it be released?
What do you mean by "move on"?
> * do not hire 40 year olds with responsibilities, convince the
> young to spend their time for free ... isn't that what one is supposed
> to do after the age of 40 ?
Even if I agreed with you, who would be the project manager? Who would be
the technical architect? There are 21 year old diamonds-in-the-rough, but
someone needs to craft them.
Unless you're suggesting that open source is its own magic pixie dust and
gifted youngsters will just materialize out of nowhere and solve all our
problems? 'pugs' was a good rough-cut at this theory, but it was also a
demonstration that the youngsters (eventually) need jobs and health care and
whatnot too. And that can leave the project in the lurch.
(also, call this A)
> * use all funds to promote its usage, not fund its development
I have nothing at all against funds being spent on promoting usage. Rather,
more broadly, I have nothing against "doing things" to promote usage, where
funds being spent is one good possibility. Your statement of "do all of X,
none of Y" suggests you have done some kind of cost-benefit analysis, linear
programming, etc. that I don't understand.
(also, call this B)
* look at successful OS orgs like mozilla and apache (different to
> each other yes) and copy their techniques
This seems at odds with A and B. Mozilla funds plenty of developers
directly. Apache is slightly more indirect in their efforts but it
co-ordinates the activities of programmers that have been hired directly by
By the way, I spent plenty of time talking with Mozilla, Apache, Eclipse,
and others to try to figure out what they do and what ideas I can bring back
from them to Perl's world.
* promote its usage past perl's borders, e.g. perl should be an
> ingredient not a closed garden at some Perl conference ...
Again, you seem to have some perspective that Perl is only a closed garden.
I recently attended a technology/finance hybrid conference and the 3
"ingredient" technologies that were talked about at the conference were #3 -
SQL, #2 - XML and #1 - Perl. No others even came up.
> a systematic plan past these points will then be possible.
What all of myself, chromatic and Richard Hainsworth seem to appreciate is
that a plan without resources to back it up is almost guaranteed to be
ineffective. Even more than that, we have an appreciation that planning
itself requires resources. (Or should the mythic 21 year olds with free
time be crafting Perl's strategic plans and cross-organization promotional
activities too?) This is what we're working on.