Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2020
Re: Announcing Perl 7
From: Leon Timmermans
June 29, 2020 02:08
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID: CAHhgV8i5SUGRwser-OMpBOWPTsVcGYdKVskYGa6GDk-Cs4TmVQ@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 5:20 PM Sawyer X <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
I agree this list is not a practical list for a lot of purposes. I
completely understand developing a proposal off-list. But not
involving the list at all before publishing it to the outside world is
> 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.
That was not my experience at all, and I'm not alone at that. That
document was locked up so tightly that I couldn't even print it or
copy from it, I definitely couldn't look up who was in it unless they
publicly commented on it. And that group email was rather an
> 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.
If those conversations are private they don't count as a community
consensus to me. I'd rather hear people speak for themselves.
> > 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.
I may have known much more than most, but what I did not know is that
this would be communicated to the outside world as a done deal. The
Plan for Perl document certainly didn't say that.