Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2014
Re: Roadmap/plan for Perl 5?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Kent Fredric
Date:
September 2, 2014 19:07
Subject:
Re: Roadmap/plan for Perl 5?
Message ID:
CAATnKFBkZpE_QvzJHmYoq8DUa04zmhA7r5_9y4526+X+s+bBAA@mail.gmail.com
On 3 September 2014 06:18, sawyer x <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I could be wrong here, but my experience in this regard has left me with
>> the desire that there should be "some place" to canonicalise plans and
>> ideas somehow.
>>
>
>
> Isn't that *the roadmap* itself?
>
>
I guess I consider "the roadmap" to be the information contained, and that
the information is agreed upon somehow.
I was mostly articulating that there seems to be no obvious place to
*store* this roadmap, and I don't know what form it will take.
ie: Some other projects tend to have roadmaps as an element of a wiki of
some description, however, we seem not to have such a wiki to document
partial concepts, or to document concepts that are sanctioned as part of
the "official roadmap"
There may be places that we could use, I seem to recall something about the
EPO wiki, but this venue has not precipitated for some reason.
>
>> Mostly because "dig through the mailinglist" seems a bit challenging for
>> any newcomer who is willing to attempt implementing the ideas.
>>
>
>
> A roadmap shouldn't be "on the mailinglist".
>
Agreed. Though discussion about ideas and development of those ideas
should be wikied (or whatever, I'm just using wiki as a placeholder for
some abstract notion ) , the conclusions and agreements aught to be
canonicalized so people aren't reading through discarded concepts prior to
finding the conclusions.
It should be a living document available in the distribution.
>
> I think the bigger issue is first agreeing there should be a roadmap. Then
> agreeing on what the items on the roadmap should be. The location is just a
> file in the dist.
> Thing is, I don't really know if there's a roadmap. I assume there isn't,
> but I sent the email to try and find out. If there isn't one, we move to
> step 1: agreeing there should be a roadmap.
> As I said, I don't really know if one exists. I'm assuming that if it
> doesn't, perhaps it's because it was impossible to agree on where the
> project should go. This is where democracy or dictatorship (or some
> mixture) is formed. Someone (single person, committee, organization),
> elected or not, makes the decision, with or without others' input.
Though I guess you could just have it be a file in the repository, just
flat text files just seem inadequate for this purpose to me, as is the idea
of storing them in the repository, because that somewhat binds the process
of drafting such documents too close to the code itself, and potentially
limits scope for documenting concepts that are mostly agreed upon, but are
not finalised in a form they can be part of "the roadmap", but I'm putting
the cart before the horse here, and some kind of roadmap system even if
imperfect, I feel would be better than what we presently have. ( Again, I'm
open to the option that such a thing exists, and I am merely ignorant of
it, ignorance is something I am quite familiar with :) )
Just strikes me as "odd" to have roadmaps part of a release.
> As I said, I don't really know if one exists. I'm assuming that if it
> doesn't, perhaps it's because it was impossible to agree on where the
> project should go. This is where democracy or dictatorship (or some
> mixture) is formed. Someone (single person, committee, organization),
> elected or not, makes the decision, with or without others' input.
>
>
We of course have benevolent pumpking RJBS to keep there being some sort
of direction, and that seems to work pretty well.
Though I do feel some sort of canonicalisation process for proposed ideas
would help deter lengthy discussions which occasionally seem to lose
direction, and newcomers to the discussion risk re-making already made
suggestions if they didn't read every leaf of every thread on the matter.
And maybe it could help us organise ourselves more effectively, so that
pumpkings are able to approve things easier if they have time constraints.
( pumkings can be busy people, and I personally don't like to burden people
or cost them time if I don't have to. Lengthy replies like this one also
consume peoples time, so despite attempts at brevity, eugh, I need more
TL;DR )
TL;DR, yes, yes, yesplease.
--
Kent
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next