Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Re: HERESY: *ONE* mailing list
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Dan Sugalski
Date:
July 25, 2000 20:05
Subject:
Re: HERESY: *ONE* mailing list
Message ID:
4.3.2.7.0.20000725224720.00ce2b20@24.8.96.48
At 09:41 AM 7/26/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 08:35:04PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > The one idea that I left the p5p meeting with is that we need *more*
> > responsibility, *more* chairpeople/pumpkings and *more* direction.
>
>You cannot manufacture order out of chaos by adding managers. :)
I'll disagree. The whole point of managing *is* to manufacture order out of
chaos. When the number of people needing direction exceeds the capabilities
of the folks giving direction, you get chaos. Adding more managers can, in
some circumstances, get and keep things orderly by fostering the bits of
order that always arise in a group, as well as encourage order in and of
themselves.
This does assume *real* managers, not the Dilbertesque PHB type that seem
to be all over the place. (Something I'm blissfully free of at the moment.
Nyah! :)
> > 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.
>
>*nodnod*. This is kinda like the idea I floated a few days ago, with
>groups spinning off the debate the real technical end of an area, then
>throwing back summaries and picking up comments from the main list.
>It's vaguely how Linux works.
I'd still split it into several main lists--language design is mostly
separate from embedding API design, which is mostly separate from
PR/advocacy issues, which is mostly separate from QA things. Not
independent, mind, but separate, and deserving of separate lists for the
most part, with overlap where warranted. I do like the summary concept--the
targeted lists should do summaries to their overview list, which should do
summaries to a master list.
Whether this is feasable is another issue entirely. Arguably it's not,
especially on a mostly volunteer effort like this. In which case the master
list with targeted sublists is probably the best alternative, though it
does mean folks will actively have to hold their tongues on the master
list, otherwise we'll end up with another p5p. (Which, while not a problem
for some people, is an amazing pain for others)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next