On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> All else aside, I feel that it is important to keep Perl6 open to the
> public in all respects and in all phases. 

You're right, which is why Perl 6 *is* open to the public.  Anyone can
contribute their ideas or code.  But someone has to make the judgement
call about what's put in the stew pot and what's not.  That decision
making process most empatically should *not* include everyone under
the sun.

> I realize that's hard to do,
> and "core" developers get swamped, but without a public voice we risk
> falling back into the same problems caused by the current elitist
> mentality. 

What problems are you referring to?  For that matter, what elitist
mentality are you referring to?

> How can we give the core developers some peace while still
> giving users direct voice? Or, fully realizing that Perl development
> is completely voluntary making election impossible, perhaps there
> should at least be some kind of "checks and balances" in place, or a
> public appeal or impeachment process.

So ... if a large portion of "users" dislike the direction that the
internals design and implementation is going, they can impeach Dan?

I don't understand what problem you are trying to solve.

> I really don't want to see another Camel where every other page has a
> "this isn't quite finished" phrase of some kind just because... well,
> for whatever reason.

I wouldn't want to see that either.

> Closing out the public sounds like what this is about, and that's very
> Perl5ish, and, from what I understand of it, totally contrary to the
> expressed goals of Perl6. 

Indeed, closing people out sounds completely contrary to the perl 6
development process.

> Everybody needs a soapbox, and creating a closed-off elitist regime is
> not an effective way of giving the public a direct say in the
> development of Perl6.

Yep, that's not an effective way to do it.

> 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

Well, that makes no sense.  Either you trust your developers or you
don't.   Everyone says their mind and then it's up to the developers
to take into account all of the myriad requests and decide if they
should become part of the project and if so, how.  Everyone
participating in that decision making process is a recipe for

How would you do it?  

Jonathan Scott Duff

Reply via email to