On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:59 PM, Peter Buckingham
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
> > Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
> > Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
> > where we were before, with a core group free to sit back unchallenged on >
> > their complacency and let Perl go to rot. To accomplish a "community
> > contributed" Perl, this way of thinking, the elitism, the os-centrism,
> > the corporate control, must have checks and balances of some type.
> > I don't disagree that the developers should have closed off lists.
> > However, I don't agree that the developers should be able to ignore the >
> > community within a closed-off little clique.. If they can, then a
> > "community contributed" and community based Perl is a farce, and cannot >
> > otherwise.
> I think that it is important that the developers have some free method of
> communication without being bogged down by insignificant details. I see no
> reason that perl6-meta will not continue to be a free list so that people can
> discuss issues relating to perl. i would assume that the 'core' developers
> continue to monitor it and address issues and concerns as they arose. i don't
> see how having closed lists for developers conflicts with having a 'open'
> discussion of perl and its current state and direction on perl meta. if you
> that someone or some group is taking perl in a direction that is bad you
> be freely able to mount a storming of the bastille on perl6-meta.
> pretty much like you are doing now :-)
> so in short it seems like you agree that developers should have some low
> mechanism of communication (a closed read-only list would seem to do this
> my point of view), but you also want a mechanism to discuss where perl6 is
> etc, i think that perl6-meta does this and will continue to do this (feel
> to correct me)
No correction required concerning the last part. However what I was responding
to was the shutting out of anyone who doesn't agree with the politics of the
perl elite, and wants to mouth off from time to time (me). You sort of have to
read between the lines on this one, Peter, because this is an old argument.
Nobody's actually saying what they mean, and I think we prefer it that way.
The problem with this is the assumption. There is _no_ assumption possible that
the developers will read a free list, or care what it says.
Dan, I don't know you. I've never had any problem with you or your leadership.
I don't believe that you'll head us into a mess, because I've no reason to
believe it. You are also not technopolitically inclined in the same direction
as your predecessor. I have no arguments with you. However, the possibility
still exists, and always will, unless some kind of check/balance system is in