At 10:48 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:40:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > You're being too specific. There is no assumption possible that perl
> > developers will do *anything*. Ever. This is a volunteer community. Any
> > other assumption you might make is unfounded.
>David also seems to miss the irony that the people who *can* be expected to
>work on Perl because they being paid to do so are probably employed by...

I know, I know! Compaq, right? :)

>Anyway, this is generating light. Could someone start generating heat, please?

Sure. This does bring up one important point, though it's getting lost in 
everyone jumping on Dave for being a paranoid loony.

Under what circumstances, and with what procedures, do we 'officially' 
remove folks from their positions? I know that I, for one, will step down 
if either Nat or Larry asks, but what happens if for some reason I turn 
into a raving nutter and won't go? Or if someone just disappears and we 
need a new person in the position?

"General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of 
the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling 
council" thing to contend with. "What Larry says" is best, but what happens 
if he doesn't, or gets hit by a bus at some point?

It's not a pleasant thing to deal with, and hopefully not ever needed, but 
it's better to deal with now when we don't have to than later when we do...


--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk

Reply via email to