Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:43:38AM +0100, J. Nick Koston wrote: > A large part of the problem seems to be finding people to work on these > projects. We have a lot more perl developers who write perl code to then > developers who can work on perl core (who are usually otherwise engaged > because of their scarcity). This generally means they end up > contributing to CPAN and not perl *core*. > > Likewise, companies probably have more money then time to donate (the > converse being true for individuals). - How reasonable is it to have TPF > hire one or more people to do *core* work? I would envision salaries be > funded by a group of collective financial commitments from various entities. To hire full time staff, I believe that TPF would have to deal with: 1: Recruiting 2: Line management/HR issues 3: Training/Mentoring 4: Supervision TPF is currently an all-volunteer organisation. Should it also hire a competent manager to deal with the non-coding aspects of having staff? Who trains the staff that TPF hires, given that nearly all the existing committers have full time day jobs? Logistically, it would be a lot easier to outsource all of this to ActiveState, as they already have existing staff to do all 4 tasks above. (If they didn't have those 4 covered, they wouldn't still be in business.) I suspect several other firms (Shadowcat and Best Practical Solutions spring to mind) can already do tasks 1, 2 and 4. ActiveState's advantage over the others, to my mind, is that they already employ two core committers with the experience to train and mentor others in the core's C and XS code. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next