Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
DISCLAIMER: This is just an idea. It isn't necessarily a good one. Some people (Hi Simon!) have valiently been serving the role of Larry's Loyal Opposition and poking holes with the idea behind Perl6, the organization, and community restructuring we're thinking about. The one idea that I left the p5p meeting with is that we need *more* responsibility, *more* chairpeople/pumpkings and *more* direction. Setting up working groups with chairs, charters, goals, deadlines, and timelines is one way to do it. It works for the W3C, and something similar works for Python. The more I think about it, that kind of setup doesn't absolutely require multiple mailing lists. It could be accomplished with one p6p mailing list where the list of acknowledged tribal elders were more than just Larry. That is, if Dan Sugalski is the acknowledged watchdog of the internals API, everyone listens when he says: "fix this, it's not reentrant". When Schwern says "fix this, you didn't supply test code" you do so. In this manner, p6p can exist much like p5p, with a chosen few watching the list slightly more closely than everyone else to make sure all important concerns behind Perl6 are met. Of course, this doesn't rule out mjd's idea of small mailing lists that are created quickly and disbanded quickly. Such rapid evolution would aid the creation of an RFC or two, with the mailing list timed to die when the RFC was released/accepted. As Simon and others are quick to point out, Perl6 needs to be fun. If we engineer the fun out of hacking CORE, then we've failed ourselves. Thoughts? Z.