Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2014
Re: Roadmap/plan for Perl 5?
Thread Previous
From:
sawyer x
Date:
September 2, 2014 22:22
Subject:
Re: Roadmap/plan for Perl 5?
Message ID:
CAMvkq_SD4BP1W9185+Bkexvfh_=VwCekDAcOwvk9bshOj3kxng@mail.gmail.com
In the interest of brevity, as you mentioned, I'll try to be brief. :)
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 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.
>
As important as that is, I'm much less interested in how we keep it, but
more of formalizing it.
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
Agreed. Makes absolute sense.
> Just strikes me as "odd" to have roadmaps part of a release.
>
Let's start with having one. :)
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
That's a good point.
Rik, is there a sort of direction?
> 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.
>
Good point.
> And maybe it could help us organise ourselves more effectively, so that
> pumpkings are able to approve things easier if they have time constraints.
>
Another fine point!
> ( 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)++
>
> TL;DR, yes, yes, yesplease.
>
:)
Thread Previous