On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:10:12 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:11:56AM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>> My critique of the Perl 6 RFC process and following discussion is now
>> available at
>> http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
>
>Agree 100% to every poin
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:18:01AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Coming from someone whoe probably wrote more RFC's than anyone else (I
> count 33), I find that pretty ironic.
I had to inject some sense into the process somehow.
--
Morton's Law:
If rats are experimented upon, they will de
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
> generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
> rather less polite about things.
I think that's what they call a "false memory".
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:42:34AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
> > generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
> > rather less
At 10:42 AM 11/3/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
> > generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
> > rather less polite about thing
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
> voices during the RFC process.
Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to tell people on more
than one occasion to grow up and behave like a
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispere
d:
| On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
| > Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
| > generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5
Comparing the perl6-language and the perl5-porters simply doesn't fly.
It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing
a busy market place and a faculty lunch.
In the first case we are talking about a crowd of people most of which
do not know each other, do not know what the peopl
At 09:30 PM 11/3/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> > Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
> > voices during the RFC process.
>
>Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to tell people
Ok,
Iv'e seen this debate - I will try to put something constructive:-
Richard
=Head1 My opinions of the Perl6 RFC process
=head2 Where do I come from this?
I am an amauteur perl user who uses it on web sites and for other admin
tasks. Have I looked at the code? - Yes. Do I know the insid
> Anyone think others are needed?
"Myopia neither equates the absence of existence of a distant object, nor
demonstrates the insanity of the non-myopic."
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
David Grove wrote:
>
> "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
> attacking the person who points them out."
Maybe; but that doesn't apply to non-issues being paraded as issues.
--
John Porter
At 04:41 PM 11/3/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>
> > Anyone think others are needed?
>
>or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
>attacking the person who points them out."
I'd lump that in with act professionally, though in general issues do need
direct addressing.
> Anyone think others are needed?
"Stick to the subject."
Perhaps another point of view will help. I'm the maintainer of
RFC 88: Omnibus Structured Exception/Error Handling Mechanism
(as at http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/88.html).
My experience of the RFC process was good to very-good; some would
rate the process fair to good. I don't think it deserves
15 matches
Mail list logo
