On Monday, October 09, 2000 3:22 PM, Stephen Zander [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> The lack of difference between perl and Perl has been the greatest
> cause of unease, disquiet and the disenfranchisement of parts of the
> Perl community because it's impossible to talk about one without
> involving the other. Clearer seperation of language and
> implementation with clear specifications and a public process for the
> former is sufficient for this to be avoided for Perl6. It is not
> necessary to allow everyone the ability to comment on every phase *as
> it happens*.
Understood. I'm just hoping for a mechanism to be in place that will prevent
the _fourth_ version of camel from being as incomplete as the third. It's hard
to teach new programmers out of a book that backpaddles on every third feature.
(Yes, that's an exaggeration.) The only thing I can realistically think of is
some sort of check and balance system. I don't think it's a good idea for
everybody to step on core developers' toes, but the perl community needs to be
able to direct or _help_ direct, or guide, the process as a whole. I'm seeing
messages to the effect of, "Ok, they've had their say, now let's make
everything private again and go to work." No, No, No.
There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no?
