David Grove wrote:
> Closing out the public sounds like what this is about, and that's very
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 Woodrow Wilson Bridge
were allowed to dink with the design of its replacement.
[www.wilsonbridge.com -- No, you *can't* modify the blueprints.]
> If the "public say" is limited to an RFC freeforall, then
> closed off to let the elite go to work, then the whole "public say" policy is a
> farce an order of magnitude worse than the "great perl merge".
You yourself have ranted against splinter perls.
If there is to be One Perl, then the authority must be allowed to
do its work, whether that's one man or a committee. In the end,
those who differ with the decisions of the authority are SOL.
(Unless, of course, splinter perls are to be allowed.)
I also think that your fears that your own efforts toward the
development of perl6 will be spurned will ultimately prove to
be unfounded. That's presuming, of course, you actually make
any efforts toward the development of perl6.
By pressing down a special key It plays a little melody