Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from June 2001
Re: Social Reform
From: Daniel S. Wilkerson
June 11, 2001 17:17
Re: Social Reform
Message ID: 3B25600D.F00AA473@digital-integrity.com
If you have not been following this thread, then maybe that is the reason for
the confused-sounding nature of your email.
I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking a person", not
Vijay. I think Vijay was the one pointing out that this person ("Me") was
contributing to the discussion and that a personal attack from Simon was
inappropriate (If I may paraphrase you Vijay. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
"Me", it would help if you would use a name, even if its not your "real" one.
David Grove wrote:
> > Previously, on St. Elsewhere...
> > Simon(e) writes...
> > > But of course, I'm sure you already know what makes
> > > good language design, because otherwise you wouldn't
> > > be mouthing off in here...
> > Why is it that "Me" is *mouthing off*, but you're not? Why is that?
> > What makes you so *special*? The fact you wrote a Perl book?!
> > A book with more typographical errors than it has pages? *Zut!*
> Actually, Simon's not that bad. We don't always get along, and sometimes
> disgree less than quietly, but he generally makes sense.
> I HAVE NOT followed this thread, so I'm only talking in generalities.
> When trouble strikes, the type you're talking about, within a Perl forum, it
> has been my experience that it has the appearance of ignoring an issue and
> attacking a person regardless of what that person said. The more true the
> person's statements, the more aggressively people, specifically referring to
> Jan Dubois and Tom Christiansen in my own personal experience, attack the
> person with complete and utter nonsense, usually personal, usually untrue,
> apparently in order to avoid having to "answer to" anything or anyone. I
> have seen these attacks come in such a way as to specifically shut a person
> up by provoking him to wrath, then pointing out that he is impossible to
> have a discussion with... and quiet resumes with the issues still in place.
> This was a huge problem in the Perl 5 Porters, and it has recently begun
> coming into the Perl 6 groups. This is why I've been distancing myself from
> this group, including your previous call to arms.
> We will achieve social reform only by refusing to conduct ourselves in this
> manner, and without social reform, Perl 6 may as well not exist for all the
> good it does us as a community. Sure, it gives some overbrained geeks a
> chance to play around with language design for a while, but that's about it.
> And, frankly, I think Simon's been a bit nicer since his book came out. I'm
> just happy that it's red and doesn't have a trademarked animal on the front.
> > "Me" may be s/wrong/clueless/... but I don't think any one of you
> > has actually understood what he/she is talking about. "Me" is at
> > least one level of abstraction higher than all of the rebuttals that
> > have been fired back in this thread.
> HOWEVER, (again, not reading OR caring about this thread), my first reponse
> to "me" since his initial barrage a couple of months ago was that he had no
> good intention. He(?) has since changed his attitude somewhat, but that
> initial impression may be getting in the way for him.
> > Right or wrong, "Me" or *you* for that matter...has the same right
> > to post to this list...Otherwise, it should be a private list, perhaps:
> Unfortunately, if we keep going in the way we're going, this will eventually
> be a semi-private list the same what that P5P became one in order to keep
> from having to take responsibility for their own actions or lack thereof.
> This coin has two sides, Vijay.
> > >"Larry Wall, Damian and the Acolytes of Doom debating Perl6"
> This particular acolyte (the writer of this email - I would say 'me' but
> that would make no sense in this context) just calls 'em as he sees 'em,
> nothing to hide, no book rights or contracts to protect, no financial reason
> to speak any way other than truth as best I know it.
> > >"Just how much $foo can dance on the head of a dot operator"
> > Is that you really want? "Why can't we (cough...) just get along?"
> > Think about it (for a change...).
> I read somewhere about the different stages of an online group. I believe it
> was referring to IRC channels or newsgroups, but this applies here as well.
> It describes that at first there is a lot of public interest because people
> discuss without being told to shut up. They address problems, and discuss
> things openly. In a later stage (there are several stages, but I forget what
> they all are), ego, conceit, and bad attitude creep in. You can see such
> attitudes on the P5P, EFNet #linux, and a few other places where people have
> gotten stuck in this trap. The final stage, which I believe that EFNet #perl
> has begun to achieve to some degree, and which we must strive to achieve, is
> an equilibrium. (Actually it forks three ways: a) equilibrium, b) dispersal
> to obliviion, or c) just plain stuck at the middle stage.)
> That middle stage is unfortunate, but it must come in order to advance
> beyond it, according to my reading. I'm not concerned about this or that
> butthead for the time being. I'm concerned that, should those of us who
> still have hopes for a new perl culture get discouraged and leave, buttheads
> will be all that's left, and we'll have something even worse than the P5P.
> Social reform takes time. I'm willing to wait it out as long as there is
> some evidence that it is occuring in at least some minor degree. However,
> attacking a person for making a valid point is never appropriate. I don't
> know that this has happened, but plenty of experience with this nonsense
> with Perl "higher-ups" leads me to believe that it's the most likely cause
> of your post.