Re: Announcing Perl 7

Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2020

Thread Previous | Thread Next

From:

Sawyer X

Date:

June 27, 2020 15:20

Subject:

Re: Announcing Perl 7

Message ID:

CAMvkq_TeFipwAzdQH6ugkrwEbtCi-oON==yrvC0FUqj-R741kg@mail.gmail.com

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:15 AM Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:58 PM Tom Ryder via perl5-porters
> <perl5-porters@perl.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:49:30PM +0300, Sawyer X wrote:
> > >I apologize for not sharing this news earlier. We have been working on
> > >this plan for a very long time. p5p is a public mailing list, and we
> > >needed to manage the communication around this. Despite not being
> > >public, many people worked on it.
> >
> > First-time poster here.
> >
> > I think not having discussed this in public risks setting a really bad
> > precedent.  I had been taking a break from lurking on perl5-porters, so
> > when the news was announced on perl.com, I assumed it had been being
> > discussed on here and that I'd simply missed it, and was very surprised
> > to find this announcement.  Can you please elaborate on "we needed to
> > manage the communication around this"?
> >
> > There was even a coincidental opportunity to discuss it openly back in
> > mid-May, and at that point, your responses seemed to imply that this
> > *wasn't* already being considered, despite your assertion that this has
> > been in the works well before that time:
> >
> > <http://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/257448>
> >
> > Could you please explain this in more detail?  Thank you.
>
> There are many things in this thread that merit response (and in due
> time I might), but this one does stick out for me.
>
> Yes, it is unusual to say the least that this list itself had to learn
> about this from a TPF press announcement. Clearly p5p is supposed to
> be the place where all these matters are discussed, and I think it's
> rather unfortunate that it was not used as such in this case.

We (and this "we" includes you, Leon) know for a very long time now
that p5p, the mailing list, is not a very practical place to discuss
major changes. It is the primary reason we held summits in person -
all of which you attended. We had discussed numerous topics and
vocalized our agreement that it would have taken far longer (and
possibly not had been resolved) if we had done it on the list, such as
the decision of dates and versions for the elimination of all
deprecated syntax. The last summit (near end of 2019) is when we first
raised these ideas, by the way. Discussions of which you also attended
in person.

The list is a good place to bikeshed, get ideas, and suggest some
topics, but it is rarely a practical arena to make large-scale
decisions. I'm quite surprised that you expressed surprise at this
since you attend the summits and know this for longer than I have.

> And to be honest, it was a rather annoying process behind the scenes
> as well. It was largely a spy game of figuring out who was in the know
> and who not; and one of the main consequences of that was none of us
> knew what most other people were thinking or especially why because
> there wasn't any unified place that included everyone; this stifled
> actual discussion.

This is incorrect, Leon. Everyone that was involved with this was in a
shared file and viewable by everyone else. It was clear who was
involved. We also had discussion threads that I initiated and tried to
keep going. The "to" list was open, as you well know. Furthermore, we
held multiple meetings in which we discussed it. It was not the cloak
and dagger that you're describing here. I recall one meeting with you
that took place until 2 or 3 am.

> All of that is particularly unfortunate because, as far as I
> understand, it's the intention to act really soon. As Karl pointed out
> blead is still closed, and I understand from the CiC grapevine(!) that
> the plan is to have an RC in about 2 months,

I don't know about this 2 months period.

> and until 7.0 nothing
> else gets in. How come we have a schedule when we don't even have a
> roadmap?

This is when your arguments also create a contradiction. On one hand,
you say that this was done in secret, that it was thrown on the list.
On the other hand, when we left a lot of things for us to openly
discuss, you express concern that these items have not been resolved
yet. We can't have it both ways.

> When so many things are unknown? When 5.32 is entirely
> unprepared to be the last perl5? (it doesn't even install a
> /usr/bin/perl5,

/usr/bin/perl5 is not what we determine. It is what the distribution
determines. We raised this several times as well, in those discussions
too, as well as in my Q&A on the second day of the conference.

> let alone other things that would facilitate
> cohabitation)

We have discussed these as well, Leon. At length. I accept feedback
that it was not shared well. I wholly disagree that it was not
discussed or is unknown.

> We are woefully ill-prepared for this at this stage (the
> fact that much of my information could be wrong shows just how little
> information is public at the moment).

I disagree. I think it is difficult to unfold such large plans (which
we clearly still have to do), but much of it is left open to figuring
out together.

> I think it is not prudent to hurry this process. Currently we haven't
> formed a consensus on anything because we haven't even had the chance
> to do so.

This is also incorrect. We have been working on this for over half a
year. We had numerous conversations on it with a staggering amount of
stakeholders. The picture you paint is incorrect and in that regard,
also unfair.

> Opening up blead and committing to releasing a 5.34 just
> like Karen already suggested would give us that breathing space.

Perhaps. This is worth discussing once the dust settles from
statements that characterize that almost no one was informed, that you
had no room to comment, that it was forced upon you, or that it was
both done in secret but also not fully done in secret.

This shows an example of the problem we have with the list. The public
feuding on the process not being exactly what you want is mixed with
the need to pin down the rest of the details and potential ways to
move forward. Having to respond to the former also takes a lot of time
from being able to focus on the latter.

> And most importantly, it allows us to bring the discussion back to p5p
> where it belongs; to take well-informed decisions and to experiment
> with what is and is not possible without undue time pressure.

This is again, ignoring the reality that p5p is not best suited for
*all* discussions, only to some. We know this and it is with this
practice that we ran for at least several years now in which we've had
core summits.

Now that we resolved to make this decision, the discussion is brought
back to the public. But at the same time, you cannot complain that
these details were not resolved privately.

> Because right now it feels like we're strapped to a rocket with 10
> seconds to lift-off, and I didn't sign up for that.

Again, this is an incorrect representation, because we (including you
and I) have been discussing it for a while now. Your participation in
it was limited - by your own choice - and now you come back with "this
is all so sudden to me." It isn't.

Thread Previous | Thread Next