Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2014
* demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> [2014-09-07T17:20:59] > I think this boils to a question about what the pumpking role is supposed > to be. If you ask me, it's: * keep releases happening * enforce perlpolicy¹ * settle debates when no consensus arises * do a whole mess of boring crud nobody else wants to do, unless they can get it delegated to somebody reliable * probably other important stuff distinct from "boring crud" that I can't think of while I'm full of dinner Possibly in that order, but I'm happier with that as a bag than a list. > Is the pumpking role supposed to be passive, like a referee? > > Or is it supposed to be active, providing leadership in terms of building > consensus and promoting and encouraging certain lines of development? Being a referee is a big part of it, for me, because I'd rather have people find consensus by convincing one another than declare one side a winner. (Or, sometimes, to declare the argument winnerless.) But that doesn't mean it's all that. It's certainly not "sit back and watch perl5 manage itself." Again, let's look at subroutine signatures, which I think demonstrates both sides of the issue. I didn't go looking for signatures. Peter Martini came to the list with the idea and with code. Once that happened, I tried to help keep it in motion, to keep it under review, and to grow consensus where possible and settle arguments where necessary. I think it's a good example. Of course, this is just how *I* feel I can do things most usefully. Others would probably want to arrange things differently… but I think the point above are probably the sine qua non. Footnote 1: revising perlpolicy to aid in that is still on my short list! -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next