Nathan Torkington wrote:
> We're lucky to have the experience of Chip to draw upon (he's already
> blazed some of the trails we'll be turning into fully-paved four-lane
> highways with Waffle Houses and Conocos), as well as a lot of people
> who've worked with perl5. They know what works and wha
Thanks for that grim view, Alan. I've been looking around for someone
to act as the Devil's Advocate and say what might go wrong, so I was
happy to see this.
Your message seems to have two points: that the current brainstorming
phase is so chaotic that it's hard to see how anything good can come
I know it seems at first like a lot of mindless paperwork, but it will
serve to make us agree on what we're doing and how we're going to do
it. I resisted all this at first, too, but the chaos of this
brainstorming phase will kill us if it persists into design and
implementation.
I've got some p
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Unfortunately the greatest volume on the various p6 sublists tends to be
> coming from the least experienced people. The comments based on common
> sense and long experience tend to be lost in the hubbub of uninformed
> noise.
I think the chaotic bra
Andy Dougherty wrote:
> I think the chaotic brainstorming on -language has been very necessary. We
> need a forum that encourages new radical ideas. Sure, most of them
> probably won't pan out or prove worthwhile, but I'm hopeful that there
> will ultimately be a few new things in perl6 that gr
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Thanks for that grim view, Alan. I've been looking around for someone
> to act as the Devil's Advocate and say what might go wrong, so I was
> happy to see this.
Glad to be of service ;-)
> I agree that the current brainstorming is chaotic. I feel like that's
> the
> > What we're doing about that:
> > * pushing the output through Larry
> > [Yes, this addresses only part of the problem. Any suggestions for
> > other ways to solve this?]
>
> The RFC mountain is way, way too high to be climbed by just one person,
> let alone the output of the various mailing
risks.html
1. Minimized by another culling phase after the RFC freeze
2. Minimized by the sub-working groups. You will notice that the
discussions on the sub-groups are quite localized in people and
discussions are limited. Some groups are noisy but what you are
witnessing is an ongoing
I've an idea to cut down and weed out the huge number of RFCs we have.
Its written out below.
=pod
=head1 TITLE
Prototype implementations for RFCs.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Sep 4 21:11:56 EDT 2000
Version:1
Mailing Lis
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I don't believe in magic. I'm an engineer by profession, not an
> astrologer. However, I will predict endless arguments when some of the
> less than coherent proposals are rejected.
The RFC process was intended to bring out both
> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> =head1 ABSTRACT
MGS> RFCs should be followed by a prototype implementation of their
MGS> proposal which provides something concrete to develop the RFC from and
MGS> helps to avoid endless discussion.
At this point, I think this i
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 12:57:47AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MGS> =head1 ABSTRACT
>
> MGS> RFCs should be followed by a prototype implementation of their
> MGS> proposal which provides something concrete to develop the RFC from
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Well, as I suggested once before (but it was probably premature at the
> time), I think people should start retracting RFC's that they don't
> think are wins, or that the general consensus is against. I'm going to
> retract 3 of my own today.
Good for you. That is a very c
13 matches
Mail list logo
