Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2020
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Sawyer X
Date:
July 3, 2020 13:42
Subject:
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID:
f821d05b-0699-4cbb-f933-26d8e7960108@gmail.com
On 6/30/20 5:50 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:54 PM Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the net result, whatever p5p does
> For the record, p5p has nothing to do with it. The public mailing
> list appears to have been carefully and intentionally excluded from
> the first few months of Perl 7 development,
I understand how this seems, but I want to try and explain this:
* p5p has a record of being a very unfruitful place for in-depth public
discussion which is not laser focused. This isn't necessarily a bad
thing, but it is when we were discussing next Perl. It was also
difficult to discuss other things. Instead, we found it suitable to
start having face-to-face conversations that started as "p5h" (Perl 5
Hackathon) and later renamed to the "Perl Core Summit" to which many
people who work on Perl or are major stakeholders to Perl (including
core developers, major company stakeholder representatives, tooling, and
vendor maintainers) were invited. You are familiar with these events
because you were also invited. We also wrote about them later online.
They were officially sponsored by The Perl Foundation, though we reached
out to companies for direct financial sponsorship.
* At the last Perl Core Summit, we had a conversation that was close to
the "mug throwing" one that later led to Perl 6. Emotions were high, as
was that famous event. My suggestion at the time was to utilize specific
syntax (the "class {...}" keyword that Cor.pm suggests) to enable all
modern defaults. Some were in favor, some not. We listed what we each
find a "modern Perl" should have (from the existing available
capabilities already in Perl). We also discussed possible problems and
how to mitigate them.
* This conversation then led to a suggestion I made to the same list.
The email suggested two options: 1. We keep Perl where it is. I quit and
help find someone more suitable to help Perl stay put. 2. We change
Perl. - I had made it very clear that this isn't "with me or without me"
but rather "we - the group - need to make a decision on this topic. One
decision I can help with, the other I would be terrible at." (Quick
apology here to those who do wish to see me step down, no sarcasm.)
Those who responded (not all did, I admit), whether on the list or
personally to me, shared a vision of "let's move forward." This led to
the proposal.
* Since the proposal is too large for p5p to properly evaluate - this
thread is strong evidence of it - we had discussed it within that group.
We then pulled more and more people into this. I also personally reached
out to other people that are or were involved intimately with Perl to
get their perspectives and thoughts. Larry was informed. I had a chat
with Jesse, with David, and many others. I sincerely apologized I had
not reached out to you.
* We also had several video chats in which we discussed the plan for
hours. I think the first one passed the 4 hour window in a single video
conference chat.
Now, I understand this seems like a no-starter and many think that any
such plan should go to p5p, but I disagree. p5p is not the developers
mailing list as it intends to be. In practice, it is a mailing list for
those interested in the development, which the developers are part of.
p5p has developers and people who don't develop. It has contributors and
people who don't. It has people who actively discuss and lurkers alike.
This thread is a good example of how difficult it is to have a focused
conversation. (I don't want to color the entire thread, but some of it
definitely is an example - not all). We all know how p5p is not good at
moving forward, but looking at how to not.
> and there have been very
> few and very incomplete and inconsistent replies here to the many
> questions and objections raised, and no response at all to a number of
> suggested modifications to the proposal that would make implementation
> of the stated goals saner and more achievable.
It takes me a long time to write a response because:
1. I have a day job. It is quite demanding at the moment.
2. I try to have a personal life, which includes having dinner, relaxing
for a bit, and hopefully some sleep. (Nowadays, I rarely get to properly
eat breakfast or lunch, if at all.)
3. I want to write thoughtful responses which avoid my
default-and-stupid knee-jerk reaction which has been proving
tremendously unhelpful over the years.
4. After hours of drafting (which can sometimes take more than several
days), a series of additional emails are sent, which I then want to read.
5. I'm drawn into 1 on 1 conversations and group conversations with
people - for which I'm thankful - in which we delve more into the
topics. This proves much more beneficial for me hearing arguments than
on the list, which I imagine people who are more list-oriented won't be
happy to hear.
In short, it's difficult to engage in the way that the list - or some
people on the list - would like people to engage in. I do apologize I am
not able to keep up. I wish I could.
FWIW, I've set a goal to go over EVERY email of this thread today and
I'll be writing a general response to address the key points, including
those raised by Dave, Dan, and others.
[...]
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next