Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 February 2017 at 09:10, Todd Rinaldo via RT
> <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
>> Is there any interest in changing
>> this? Given the priorities put on the toolchain to maintain stability
>> among other things. It's surprising to me there is no good forum
>> to have a discussion more frequently than once a year.
>
> We could consider the idea of a fortnightly, monthly, or bimonthly
> formal meeting online somewhere.
>
> As long as sufficient advance warning of said meeting is advertised to
> enough channels, and with sufficient calls for agenda items, and
> sufficient advance notice of agenda items, in conjunction with
> archived copies of formal meeting logs and log summaries ("outcomes"),
> it could be useful.
>
> As I imagine that as long as we had them regularly scheduled and at a
> well defined time, people who had vested interest in participation
> could factor it into their scheduling if they're not able to keep on
> top of all the things we do in an informal manner.
>
> This would also double as a kind of transparency provider for people
> outside the echo-chamber, as the logs and summaries would be something
> 3rd parties/vendors/LWN/etc could cite, whereas the overall nature of
> toolchain at present is mostly "secret" if you're not part of the
> constant IRC conversation. ( Of which a lot of is not relevant to
> outsiders, and is merely dealing with specific and localised problems,
> not wider ones )
I'm not sure if frequent scheduled meetings are really appropriate for
this. It isn't often that something with such cross cutting concerns
comes up. Most things driving changes in toolchain are isolated to
the individual components, so I feel like meetings would not be well
attended. And that would end up being even more isolating than the
status quo of IRC being the closest we have to a focal point.
We definitely should do better in terms of visibility and
accessibility of toolchain concerns. We have a ton of mailing lists,
IRC, and various issue trackers, but there isn't a good common venue
for concerns like might be discussed at the Toolchain Summit. The
cpan.workers mailing list would probably be the most appropriate place
for discussion, but it has few subscribers. If I had to pick a place
for that kind of discussion right now, it might be the GitHub
toolchain-site issue tracker
(https://github.com/Perl-Toolchain-Gang/toolchain-site/issues). It
hasn't been used that way, but maybe it could be.
I think the scheduling of the Toolchain Summit is working against us
as well. Being so close to the blead freeze and stable release makes
it hard for P5P to react to toolchain changes, and for toolchain to
react to changes in blead.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next