Adam Turoff wrote:
> From this, I can extract these action items:
>
> 1) Set up p6 development like other open source projects, where there
>is a "core team" responsible for the progress of Perl6 or a component
>of Perl6. These people have write access to the source repository
>(wha
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but I really can't stomach watching this slow motion train
> wreck any longer, so good luck and goodbye.
Plonk.
--
John Porter
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >
> > At this point, I think this is too strong. My understanding of Larry's
> > intention is that we are now brainstorming. Brainstorming can not work
> > if folks will pre-filter their ideas. Part of the effect is a half-baked
> > idea on anothe
Well, THAT was certainly specific, insightful, politely phrased, and
filled with pertinent advice on how to remedy the problem!
Alan, you're right about certain things...it's important that talented,
experienced people have the final say over the final product. However,
most of the problems in e
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:29:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> No. You can not oblige the RFC maintainer to write the prototype or
> cat-herd someone else into it. The vast majority of RFC authors
> (myself included) would simply not be up to such an order.
>
> Instead, it should be the WG lead
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:29:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > No. You can not oblige the RFC maintainer to write the prototype or
> > cat-herd someone else into it. The vast majority of RFC authors
> > (myself included) would simply not be up to such an order.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:06:49PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Its all flexible. I forgot to put my usual "there will be exceptions"
> > clause into the RFC.
>
> If I'm allowed to interpret it to mean "There IS no Rule #6",
> then everything's dandy.
The main thing
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> The main thing I wish to accomplish here is to change the prevailing
> attitude from "write an RFC and maybe something will come of it" to
> "write an RFC and make sure something comes of it." Move the ball
> down the field.
Eminently reasonable.
> I wish to make
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 04:38:01PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> You have not addressed my (and I suspect many others') greatest concern:
> I am not a p5 hacker; nor am I a p6 hacker by dint of the fact that p6 does
> not yet exist. Can I write the prototype in pseudocode? Or should I be
> buildin
> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> If the idea behind the RFC is good enough, not having time or tuits
MGS> should not be a problem, as its inherent err... "goodness" should
MGS> attract those who have time and tuits. Even if the RFC is marginal
MGS> but provocativ
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> -*> SOURCE FILTERS <<<
Oh, yes. Damn. I forgot about filters. :-( Sorry, one and all.
Maybe ALL of p6 should be prototyped using one giant filter?
--
John Porter
At 05:30 PM 9/11/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>Up until that point, it is wasted energy. At this point, without code
>there is nothing locked down, no cost in changing. (Yes, even though
>they are bits, changing software, changing architecture has major
>costs.)
Don't forget that changing archi
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 05:30:01PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> We are not at that stage yet.
We're so far into that stage that its starting to rot. We have 209
seperate feature ideas. That's plenty to start getting serious.
Just because we start thinking seriously about implementation detai
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 05:38:59PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Maybe ALL of p6 should be prototyped using one giant filter?
That would be basically what the p52p6 translator will be.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant
> Bad reasons
> I do not have time.
> I do not have the tuits.
I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
> I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
> actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
I also think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG
chairs wrote up summaries like they said they would. They obviously
don't.
Frankly, I don't really see w
Mark-Jason Dominus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
> wrote up summaries like they said they would. They obviously don't.
> Frankly, I don't really see what the WG chairs are for, unless maybe
> it's to play list mom.
Good qu
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I've been feeling guilty about not doing much in the way of chair-like
> things with date-time, but I'm also not sure what exactly I'm supposed to
> be doing. Discussion has essentially died out completely, which means
> that I probably should be trying to kick-start it.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I hope many more people take
> note of your gutsy lead and follow it.
> I'm sure that your mail will have put you high up on the list of
> 'promising fresh blood' :-) Please don't take my original commnents as
> being directed at you personally - your
Adam Turoff wrote:
> All of the RFCs have mailing lists associated with them, and all of
> the mailing lists have chairpeople leading discussion.
>
> Why not ask these chairpeople to start a Last Call process, whereby
> any unmaintained RFCs can be marked as "unmaintained and withdrawn"
> by the r
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:34:55PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> Wait. Does a good idea have to go away simply because the person
> who originally proposed it no longer has interest? What if several
> people are interested, but the original author has totally skipped out
> on Perl6 devel
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:34:55PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
>> Wait. Does a good idea have to go away simply because the person
>> who originally proposed it no longer has interest? What if several
>> people are interested, but the original author has totally skipped out
>> on Perl6
> RFC - Prototype RFC Implementations - Seperating the men from the boys.
Feh.
Scuse me while I find my detachable penis.
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone:
Nat "Is pm for Project Management or Perl Module" Torkington wrote:
> You're right that it's very unclear how RFCs will be accepted or
> rejected. It's become obvious from the variety of RFCs proposed that
> Perl cannot be designed by committee. That's why there's one person
> designated as the
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:49:52PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:34:55PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> >
> > Presumably the discarding will be heralded with an announcement on the
> > mailing list, as well as a note to the maintainer. The interested
> > pa
> I believe in having small control teams (2-3 people) assigned to
> each issue; these teams act as moderators for whatever they are
> implementing. These teams consist entirely of proven people. Give
> the control teams whatever they need to function: read-only + public
> mailing lists, etc.
I think the success criteria on http://dev.perl.org/pm/pos.html
should be more measurable.
> SUCCESS CRITERIA
> 1.Benchmarks of text processing programs show improved performance on
perl6 over perl5.
Yes, but how much improved? Is 50% in everyone's minds, or is 10%
enough? How much i
J David Blackstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the success criteria on http://dev.perl.org/pm/pos.html
> should be more measurable.
>> SUCCESS CRITERIA
>> 1. Benchmarks of text processing programs show improved performance on
> perl6 over perl5.
> Yes, but how much improved? Is
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:49:52PM -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> > Presumably the discarding will be heralded with an announcement on the
> > mailing list, as well as a note to the maintainer. The interested
> > parties should see this and yell.
>
> Just wanted to get that stated explici
Schwern wrote:
> Seperating the men from the boys.
I'll just go get my detachable penis :)
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne V
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:44:38PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Schwern wrote:
> > Seperating the men from the boys.
>
> I'll just go get my detachable penis :)
That's easily solved with the Tie::Penis module.
--
Michael G Schwern http:/
There's been a lot of discussion lately on -meta which implies that the
RFC/brainstorming process has gotten out of control. I personally think
that it's going exactly as it should, and I've seen little to worry
about, which is why I've been fairly hands-off apart from trying to get
some process-
32 matches
Mail list logo
