On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:39:27 -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
If enough people really feel that worried about Perl falling into
the hands of a few, then something like this might be a good idea.
I am quite happy with Perl as it is now, so having no say in how it
should evolve, doesn't really
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, David Grove wrote:
On Monday, October 09, 2000 7:12 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
How about an open, crossplatform mailing list for issues, with a
mechanism on perl.org for public voting on larger issues.
In a volunteer organization, you can't
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
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?
Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the closed lists (and,
symmetrically, that it not
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Read-only access is a must for any list like this, and with more
DS than just a web archive. I'm sure Ask will set things up so anyone
DS that likes can subscribe to the read-only version of the list.
that was in my original post about
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
"Dan" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan A better analogy is that Larry's the Bishop and Chief
Dan Architect, while the rest of us are engineers, sectional
Dan architects, artisans, craftsmen, journeymen, and apprentices,
Dan working to build up a cathedral. (And yes,
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
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?
I don't know that this is _better_, but...perhaps we could have
the lists that
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I was going to suggest a criteria for initial membership of having
authored at least a CPAN module or core patch, but I'm not sure. It
seems reasonable that someone shouldn't be programming core if they
haven't really done anything big in Perl before (and given it back),
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:34:33PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
is there some way we can duplicate/adapt
their process so that we can simultaneously put to rest both David Grove's
concerns about elitism and Dan Sugalski's concerns about lack of planning?
No.
--
Everything that can ever be
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:26 PM, Andy Dougherty
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
[An offlist request for clarification, though I invite you to follow-up to
the perl6-meta list if you deem appropriate]
Absolutely it's appropriate. They think I'm paranoid and the only one who sees
the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the closed lists
Yep, this is my only concern. It should be reasonably easy to say "I
really want to help" and get on the closed lists. Perhaps the best way
of making sure the lists don't bloat into "everyone has an opinion"
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:11:54PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
Perhaps, then, there should be one more officer, chosen by Larry himself.
This person would be responsible for collecting public opinions and
representing them to the developer group, who needs to follow that guidance
as long as
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:11:54pm -0500, David Grove wrote:
They think I'm paranoid and the only one who sees the danger.
Relatively few people speak openly about it for fear of getting the
same beatings I get on a regular basis. Frankly I think it's
important for these guys just to realize
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:33 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff
[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
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:38:17PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see a problem yet. If Perl were
somehow being "taken over", then I expect the Perl community (at the
very least, one David Grove :-) to be up in arms about it.
And then they could fork,
"David" == David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David The community need that I _know_ is being ignored is the
David ability to have a perl that's not taking a dive toward being
David slopped all over with the four-colored flag. Community interest
David must take a higher precedence in the
At 02:11 PM 10/10/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
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
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
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:31 AM 10/10/00 -0600, John Barnette wrote:
D'you think it's a possibility to provide read-only access to the lists
for interested parties? I'm certainly not competent enough to
contribute to a core discussion, for example, but I have no doubt
I'd like a volunteer to research and HTMLify the reading list. I
collected everyone's books (and will add my list when I get back to
the house). I just need someone to dig up ISBN numbers, Amazon links,
and HTMLify it all into submission.
Mail me direct if you want to volunteer. Thanks,
Nat
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
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?
I don't know that this is _better_, but...perhaps we could have
the lists that you
At 05:59 PM 10/10/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:27 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
Consider:
"Public Opinion": Hey, we need Perl 6 stable in three weeks.
Coders: But, uhm, we haven't started coding yet.
Consider:
Microsoft: We need
At 04:51 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:23:07PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Having had cause to root around in the archives of perl6 and perl5 lists,
can I suggest that we use the system that perl5-porters is archived on in
preference to the system that
At 09:04 PM 10/10/00 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
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?
Instead of group-writable
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Works. We still have those Quantum Ninja that we're holding in reserve for
Damian... :)
Yeah... they're vicious, too - they kick ass in constant time. ;-)
-Nate
David Grove wrote:
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.
David, please, you must be more specific and less idiomatic. I
don't even know what the four-colored flag
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 06:01:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
"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
27 matches
Mail list logo
