2008 3:39 AM
> To: perl6-users@perl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl 6 fundraising and related topics.
>
> Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>
> > Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in.
>
> I want to endorse everything Richard then went on to say.
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 12:26:35 James Fuller wrote:
> I do not think that its right to release
> perl6 for the language, but it might be 'right' to do for language
> adoption no doubt cathedral / bazaar forces are in effect.
I don't follow this; can you elaborate?
-- c
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Richard Dice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What all of myself, chromatic and Richard Hainsworth seem to appreciate is
> that a plan without resources to back it up is almost guaranteed to be
> ineffective. Even more than that, we have an appreciation that planning
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 11:08:15 James Fuller wrote:
> can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;
>
>* just release perl 6 now and move on
To what extent?
Larry "just released" Perl 5 some 13 and a half years ago, and there've been a
few patches applied to it in the past 24 h
can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;
* just release perl 6 now and move on
* do not hire 40 year olds with responsibilities, convince the
young to spend their time for free ... isn't that what one is supposed
to do after the age of 40 ?
* use all funds to promote its u
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:26:35PM +0100, James Fuller wrote:
: oh ya and the ability to mate right we can
: leave the last one off ;)
No we can't. That is *precisely* what this whole business of derivable
grammars is about, and it came about because you couldn't mate two
source filters in P
Hi James,
Your comment suggest you have a particular perspective or point of view.
Without providing a some context I'm afraid I'm going to find some of your
comments confusing.
>
> * just release perl 6 now and move on
>
This is one of those confusing comments. There isn't a single p6
implem
I think the crucial point to pick up on is something that chromatic has
pointed out very well in any number of use.perl journal postings over the
past year. That is, Perl 6's creation is dependent on how much time people
put into it, and how many people put in time. The volunteer effort to date
h
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in.
I want to endorse everything Richard then went on to say.
I have already contacted Uri and expressed my dismay at his entirely
inappropriate interjection of an advertisement for our Perl College event into
t
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 10:50:15 Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> What the perl6 language needs now is a systematic development plan, with
> broad aims and clear goals that will lead to good quality software and
> to the tools to enable ordinary programmers to use perl6 for a variety
> of tasks.
Rich
> "RH" == Richard Hainsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RH> Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in. You mention
RH> a specific person, someone who is highly respected and extremely
RH> talented. You ask if I consider this person to be as flaky as a
RH> character that
> "RH" == Richard Hainsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RH> No one likes bureacracy. But I feel much happier about handing over
RH> money, or persuading someone else to hand over money, to a group of
RH> people with established procedures and collective responsibility, than
RH> to som
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 10:50:15 Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> What the perl6 language needs now is a systematic development plan, with
> broad aims and clear goals that will lead to good quality software and
> to the tools to enable ordinary programmers to use perl6 for a variety
> of tasks.
Perl
Uri,
Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in. You mention a
specific person, someone who is highly respected and extremely talented.
You ask if I consider this person to be as flaky as a character that was
a figment of my imagination, and if I say 'no he is not so flaky', then
FYI
This discussion remains on-going. Some of the issues raised require
investigation to clarify, which takes time.
Richard
Gabor Szabo wrote:
Has anything happened in response to this discussion?
Gabor
Has anything happened in response to this discussion?
Gabor
> From: Gabor Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:04 PM
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> >
> > > I am mostly ignoring the rest of what others have said in this
> thread
>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
> > I am mostly ignoring the rest of what others have said in this thread
> > because I think it is detracting from your intention of getting money to
> > people to work more.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
I am mostly ignoring the rest of what others have said in this thread
because I think it is detracting from your intention of getting money to
people to work more. Here is one thing that has frustrated me about TPF.
They are a non-profit organization.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's what made me come to the conclusion that it's really "The Parrot
> Foundation".
It's not The Parrot Foundation. It's that NLNet gave a very large
targeted grant for Parrot. It's a single big donation that's driving
that.
I'm wo
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that this can't be done
directly because of rules surrounding TPF's non-profit status. Someone
else pointed out the problems with TPF officers benefitting directly
from the donations, even though some of the
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what made me come to the conclusion that it's really "The Parrot
Foundation".
As brian mentioned, the NLNet grant is what's driving the Parrot work.
AFAIK, there haven't been any Parrot-related grants for a long time
besides that one and t
> I've seen that Daniel Ruoso applied for a grant for his smop project,
> basically a virtual machine and fast backend for kp6, and perhaps other
> implementations.
>
> TPF decided not to invest into yet another implementation.
I appreciate that it is a subtle distinction to make, too subtle to
r
Hi everyone,
Guess it's time for me to finally join the discussion. :-) I've been paying
attention to this thread since it started.
> > Which made me think ... wasn't this why Mozilla created a corporation?
>
I believe one can find online write-ups from the people involved with the
decision to
Qui, 2008-02-21 às 11:15 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
> I was already told at the beginning of Perl 6 that nobody wanted my
> implementation skills. :)
I really wouldn't mind your implementation skills being used in SMOP ;).
daniel
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 18:45 -0500, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that's what they
> want to do)
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that this can't be done
directly beca
> Whilst debating issues like parrot vs pugs, or single-track vs parellel
> track development, can be quite interesting, especially if it induces
> Larry to compare straight lines to mountains and railroads, it is likely
> to be more useful to have suggestions like chromatic's - 1month of
> dedicat
> In article
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad Schneiker
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> So over the next few months, I'm planning to learn about
>> fundraising, and see what I can accomplish on behalf of Perl
>> 6 development. To that end, I'm soliciting:
>
> It's not really a money problem. It's
OOOWWW my tail is burnt!!! But I wasnt on the committee... promise.
Sorry about the cat...
So lets get some money into this Foundation, so that, perhaps, Larry
might possibly, if he deserves, get a little more money.
Richard
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03:03AM +0300, Richar
> From: Geoffrey Broadwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:20 PM
>
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 18:45 -0500, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Allow people to choose where their money will go (if that'
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> Here is something to consider. Unless we can afford to fund an individual
> full time with enough money for them to pay for their own health coverage
> and other benefits, the amount of time they are volunteering is already as
> much a
In article
, Conrad Schneiker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So over the next few months, I'm planning to learn about
> fundraising, and see what I can accomplish on behalf of Perl
> 6 development. To that end, I'm soliciting:
It's not really a money problem. It's finding someone to give the money
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03:03AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> No one likes bureacracy. But I feel much happier about handing over money,
> or persuading someone else to hand over money, to a group of people with
> established procedures and collective responsibility, than to some
> enthu
This thread on p6l should hopefully interest many p6u readers too.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Hainsworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:28 AM
> To: Conrad Schneiker; chromatic; p6l
> Subject: Re: Perl 6 fundraising and related topi
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:24 AM
>
> > Whilst debating issues like parrot vs pugs, or single-track vs
> parellel
> > track development, can be quite interesting, especially if it induces
> > Larry to compare straight lines to mountains a
On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I could take a month's sabbatical from my day job for $5000 without losing
> insurance coverage or other benefits. That's slightly more than Audrey's
> $100/day,
In my $life, I raise money from sponsors.
It is not difficult to spend money, once you have it.
It is not difficult to raise money, once you know how to spend it wisely.
What's difficult is putting the two together.
Some donors know what to contribute to - they choose specific projects
and peo
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that this can't be done
> directly because of rules surrounding TPF's non-profit status.
That someone was me and that's not what I said. I said it isn't as simple
as Bob
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 06:25:42 Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
>
> I could take a month's sabbatical from my day job for $5000 without losing
> insurance coverage or other benefits. That's slightly more than Audrey's
> $100/da
On Feb 21, 2008, at 14:42 , Larry Wall wrote:
Again, that was a really good argument for pugs, which among other
things *renewed* excitement in parrot. But pugs also demonstrated
some
difficulties with that approach. The fact is that every approach has
run into almost insurmountable diffic
Larry Wall skribis 2008-02-21 11:42 (-0800):
> : There are many important benefits to having several implementations,
> : including fun and education. But commercially and marketing-wise, it's
> : better to first assemble something that *works*, then to optimize its
> : performance.
> Hmm, indeed,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:07:14PM +0100, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
: I would very strongly prefer to see a focussed effort towards a single
: full implementation.
:
: There are many important benefits to having several implementations,
: including fun and education. But commercially and marketing-wis
Larry Wall skribis 2008-02-21 11:15 (-0800):
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:29:05PM +0100, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
> : Then backtracking would happen, or more likely: Perl 6 would die. If
> : this community cannot come up with a virtual machine that can handle
> : Perl 6, then many people will lose all
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:29:05PM +0100, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
: Then backtracking would happen, or more likely: Perl 6 would die. If
: this community cannot come up with a virtual machine that can handle
: Perl 6, then many people will lose all hope.
Except that the people working on alternative
[...]
I was there at the workshop too. You cannot count me in into being biased
against Perl 6. Only biased that it takes so long :-).
I know, and there were some others (like Herbert aka lichtkind, who writes
and maintains the German Perl 6 wiki pages) with the same opinions.
But the ge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.
>>> I guess I have more trust in people than you do. :)
>>
>> ... and I just learned that my opions are biased.
>>
>> Last
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Conrad Schneiker <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've repeatedly encountered remarks about how much Perl 6
> development is constrained by the fairly severe time and
> energy constraints of its overwhelmingly volunteer
> development team.
Here is something to cons
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:14:13 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers large
> parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost pugs
> development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.
> And I do believe that it can b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.
I guess I have more trust in people than you do. :)
... and I just learned that my opions are biased.
Last week I visited the German Perl Workshop, and heard many
>>I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
>>perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.
>>
>>
> I guess I have more trust in people than you do. :)
... and I just learned that my opions are biased.
Last week I visited the German Perl Workshop, and heard many Perl 6
critical s
>>>Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Let's ask the other way round: Is this the time for only one
>>implementation? And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?
>>
>>What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely, but
>>possible).
>>
>>
On 21/02/2008, Juerd Waalboer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (Someone wrote:)
>
> > > And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?
>
>
> It is the original plan to implement Perl 6 on Parrot, and the project
> that gets most developer attention.
>
>
> > > What happens if parrot turns out to
> (Someone wrote:)
> > And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?
It is the original plan to implement Perl 6 on Parrot, and the project
that gets most developer attention.
> > What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely,
> > but possible).
Then backtracking would h
> [...]
>
>>>To that end, I'm soliciting:
>>>(1) your suggestions for preparation,
>>>(2) your ideas for proposals, and
>>>(3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
>>>and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
>>>extremely leveraged causes (technically, econom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis 2008-02-21 9:38 (+0100):
> 1) Let The Perl Foundation decide what to do with the money
> advantage: they already have a comitee (is that really an advantage? ;-)
> disadvantage: they seem to think that Perl 6 on Parrot is _the_ and the
> only way to go. (There's nothing w
[...]
Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now?
Let's ask the other way round: Is this the time for only one
implementation? And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?
What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely, but
possible).
Let's give
[...]
To that end, I'm soliciting:
(1) your suggestions for preparation,
(2) your ideas for proposals, and
(3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
extremely leveraged causes (technically, economically,
and social
> I've repeatedly encountered remarks about how much Perl 6
> development is constrained by the fairly severe time and
> energy constraints of its overwhelmingly volunteer
> development team.
I think that is a valid point.
On the other hand the language has to become mature gradually, and that
pro
58 matches
Mail list logo
