Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2018
On 2 January 2018 at 07:03, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > Toxic seems way too strong. > > I think we don't have a process, and that we need one. > The current model lends itself to the feeling that one has to be actively involved in P5P conversations, and constantly observing the mailinglist, just to avert future disasters ( either by needing to change downstream code, or by petitioning P5P to find another way ) That situation breeds the sensation of needing to "babysit" things, and that's very much not good. That, combined with extended frustration, shouldn't surprise people that toxic results occur. And I don't believe the majority of people who use Perl participate in P5P conversations, nor could we expect them to. But the current system is set up such that end users are expected to "chime in" when things are bad, where ideally that's our worst-case. P5P direction should be good enough and thoughtful enough that we're not relying on *consumers* of Perl to tell us when we've done poorly. That'd be like running a business where you're inherently reliant on the existence and utilization of a well-staffed complaints department. Complaints are useful, but using them as your dominant design control is kinda not smart. -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNLThread Previous | Thread Next