On Monday, October 09, 2000 7:12 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove writes:
> > There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no?
>
> Nobody's suggesting complete quiet.
>
> What we're seeing is the fundamental conflict of:
> - the need for a coherent design meaning that very few people control
> the design
> - the need for openness and public involvement to avoid misdirection
> or malfeasance
>
> Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
> best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.
>
> Anyone have better suggestions?
>
> Nat
How about an open, crossplatform mailing list for issues, with a mechanism on
perl.org for public voting on larger issues. The issue would be given, 30 days
would take the polls, it would be as rig-proof as possible, and Larry would
have the power to veto (final say period). That gives a soapbox, guidelines
(Win32 and Mac are people too - elitists well we'll see), a direct public
effect on Perl, and Larry's final say over his intellectual property. Simple
majority rule on issues, 2/3 to impeach, simple majority per O/S to release.
Takes n requests to come to a vote (keep it low until we know what we're
working with), fully automated (pre-poll or signature style). Authenticated
emails only (a la majordomo), real emails only (sorry hotmail). I'd be happy to
help with setting it up if needed (polling system).
Good? Bad?
It's simple enough to achieve the objectives, I think.
