On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:33 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff 
> 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.
> What does "unchallenged on their complacency" mean?  In the world of
> OSS, those that have time and inclination design or code things they
> find interesting.  If no one champions a cause, nothing happens.  It
> sounds like you are saying that if the community wants Feature X and no
> one steps up to write the code to add Feature X to perl, then "the
> community" should somehow be able to force the developers that are
> already working on some aspect of perl to add Feature X.
> > However, I don't agree that the developers should be able to ignore
> > the community within a closed-off little clique.
> What community needs do you feel are being ignored?

"Unchallenged on their complacency": knowing the issue and ignoring it because 
it doesn't affect them or their O/S, or in Tom's case, his personal 
workstation. Having a sudden shock of amazement, anger, and comprehension that 
the problem exists, then forgetting about it because they don't have to care.

To those who don't know the old argument, which out of respect for the list and 
the listmaster I won't detail, I'm not talking about features so much as 
corporate collusion and corporate control. In the Win32 world, this has been 
very real, and very painful, but the P5P mostly ignored the issues because they 
were either not interested in Win32 affairs, or affected in other ways. The 
community need that I _know_ is being ignored is the ability to have a perl 
that's not taking a dive toward being slopped all over with the four-colored 
flag. Community interest must take a higher precedence in the development of 
Perl 6 than corporate interests, if Perl 6 is to be a "community project" at 

To those who do know the old argument and still think I'm paranoid, just see 
the logic in being _able_ to control the problem, since it is definitely at 
least a potential.

To those who do know the old argument and don't think I'm paranoid, please 
speak up. Don't just private mail me.

I _choose_ not to be paying for perl by 2005.

Reply via email to