Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Re: Why we're here
July 24, 2000 02:47
Re: Why we're here
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Brad Clawsie (lists.bootstrap):
>> Which other languages were you thinking of, precisely?
>arguably, o'reilly is already the de facto pr mouth for perl,
>considering who they employ and their sponsorship of perl.com.
Actually, I think I see another solution here.
We've got structure already in place for advocacy: the Perl Mongers.
So if the problem is with PR and advocacy, that our PR is not in hand,
it's a problem with the Perl Mongers. Let's not evade that.
There are fixable problems and there are non-fixable problems. The state
of the Perl internals is really not a fixable problem. The Perl Mongers'
PR ability, however, *is* a fixable problem.
So let's not take the Etch-a-sketch fix and rub everything out and start
again; I really get the feeling we've been trying to change a fuse with
a chainsaw here. We've got the Perl Mongers, so let's use them. New
roles don't fix anything. New behaviour does. Novel though it may seem,
let's actually attempt to fix the problem.
How we should do this is perhaps a question that may well be best
decided on the advocacy mailing list; one thought I had is that
the Perl Mongers may be able to borrow PR people from ORA or AS, in
whatever capacity - whether acting directly as PR staff, or helping Perl
Mongers to learn about how to do their thing better. If there's a need
for a Perl spokesperson and a corporate liaison person, the Perl Mongers
is the natural place for them.
I think this leads to a more general concern: the Perl Mongers is an
organisation, and Yet Another Society, whatever its role may become, is
an organisation. But Perl is not an organisation. It's just a bunch of
people working on a programming language.
Throwing organisational style structure over the top of that may be the
easy way to do things, but may not necessarily be the best.
Within a computer, natural language is unnatural.