Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 06:38 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote: the second part is internals. not to take anything from dan, but i see a bottom up approach being very useful here. I disagree. This is too big a project to manage that way. If we do it we're setting ourselves up for an enormous amount of trouble

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Uri Guttman
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS At 06:38 PM 10/8/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote: the second part is internals. not to take anything from dan, but i see a bottom up approach being very useful here. DS I disagree. This is too big a project to manage that way. If we do

RE: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread David Grove
On Monday, October 09, 2000 1:17 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: At 04:13 PM 10/8/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: I've heard people asking for RFCs to continue after the brainstorming. What do we want to do that we need RFCs for? Design? Implementation? Working out the

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote: All else aside, I feel that it is important to keep Perl6 open to the public in all respects and in all phases. You're right, which is why Perl 6 *is* open to the public. Anyone can contribute their ideas or code. But someone has

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Simon Cozens
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote: I realize that's hard to do, and "core" developers get swamped, but without a public voice Perl 6 Public Relations - brian d foy The public relations side of development relays important events and happenings

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Simon Cozens
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 01:10:57PM -0500, David Grove wrote: Perl 6 Public Relations - brian d foy Public relations? Uh, who is the Perl 6 information officer? I don't have the faintest idea. -- "You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Stephen Zander
"David" == David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David If the "public say" is limited to an RFC freeforall, then David closed off to let the elite go to work, then the whole David "public say" policy is a farce an order of magnitude worse David than the "great perl merge". Either

RE: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread David Grove
On Monday, October 09, 2000 3:22 PM, Stephen Zander [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: The lack of difference between perl and Perl has been the greatest cause of unease, disquiet and the disenfranchisement of parts of the Perl community because it's impossible to talk about one without

RE: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Nathan Torkington
David Grove writes: There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no? Nobody's suggesting complete quiet. What we're seeing is the fundamental conflict of: - the need for a coherent design meaning that very few people control the design - the need for openness and public

RE: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread David Grove
On Monday, October 09, 2000 7:12 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: David Grove writes: There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no? Nobody's suggesting complete quiet. What we're seeing is the fundamental conflict of: - the need for a coherent design

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread J. David Blackstone
This proposal has some good thoughts. Cut me some slack for not being completely supportive of it; in my country, when they allowed the public to ask the elite candidates for office any question they wanted, the favorite question was "Do you wear boxers or briefs?" How about an open,

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread John Porter
J. David Blackstone wrote: When they drafted the U.S. constitution, there was a huge debate over whether to base congressional representation on population per state or make each state equal. Both sides had a good claim to the other being unfair; giving a smaller state (Rhode Island, or

Re: Continued RFC process

2000-10-09 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:36 PM 10/9/00 -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote: J. David Blackstone wrote: When they drafted the U.S. constitution, there was a huge debate over whether to base congressional representation on population per state or make each state equal. Both sides had a good claim to the