Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2020
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Kent Fredric
Date:
July 3, 2020 17:00
Subject:
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID:
CAATnKFDACA0mJA0x2r-kM1EHafA+wrzBPAxQhV+2qoatmM5zRQ@mail.gmail.com
[top posted]
Can you be more brief in future? This is a lot of content, and a
shortage of actual information. It's a waste of my time and a headache
to read this shit.
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 03:47, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>
> I understand this upset you greatly. I'm sorry about that. I'll try to
> address your points below best I can.
>
>
>
> On 6/28/20 8:06 AM, Tom Ryder wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 06:20:38PM +0300, Sawyer X 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.
> >
> > My objection is that the community didn't get a chance to discuss the
> > changes at all, whether on perl5-porters or nay. The changes were
> > announced after being decided by an apparently closed group---and were
> > already considered sufficiently finalised that a book has been
> > released by one of the group about preparing for the changes,
> > announced in the very same post. It looks very much like a fait
> > accompli.
> >
> > <https://leanpub.com/preparing_for_perl7>
>
>
> The community does not make this decision, for several reasons.
>
>
> 1. There is no definition of "the community." p5p attendance is not the
> community. In fact, some people who contribute to Perl are not even on
> the list, so it's not even the developers community. It is "a community"
> who is interested in the development and is willing to be on the list.
> Furthermore, many on the list don't bother reading it. I don't blame them.
>
> 2. The community does not have any specific representative that allows
> forming a single decision. It is a non-contingent group of people who
> each have their own interests and opinions. Some of them agree on some
> topics, many of them disagree on most, since it is such a wide variety
> of people, many of which with conflicting interests.
>
> 3. The community (whatever unknown and unorganized body of people it may
> be) are not the ones developing the language. You might argue that they
> are the ones using it, but various people have argued in the past that
> DarkPAN, specifically code that is not accounted for publicly, much of
> it written by people who are not in the communities, is a larger
> percentage of actually running Perl code. That means that the community
> isn't the biggest users necessarily.
>
>
> Whoever you are referring to when stipulating "the community" (what I
> imagine you mean is p5p mailing list) is not the ones who determine
> where the language goes.
>
>
> You are also mistaken in how you perceive who you referred to as "an
> apparently closed group" to which it was announced. Discussions ensued
> within this group who are, by far and large, the biggest core
> contributors to the language and major stakeholders, tooling, and
> vendors. I had explained in more detail in a response to Craig earlier
> today. I offer you the same apology of not reaching out to you as I
> genuinely offer to Craig. However, I disagree strongly with your points
> and the view you share above.
>
>
> When we were preparing for announcement, we wanted to get organized and
> coordinated on the announcement. I can imagine this being upsetting to
> you if your definition of "get organized" includes a lengthy debate on
> p5p in which p5p approves the plans. What we did was reach out to people
> who communicate changes on Perl to the community at large. This was a
> day or two before the conference, if I recall correctly. The goal was
> for brian to be able to communicate quickly to the general public who
> read Perl.com and The Effective Perler to help spread the information in
> a clear way. The goal was for me to send the announcement immediately
> after the talk to p5p but unluck would have it and I wasn't able to do
> so. This is also why my announcement included an apology to this effect.
>
>
> In short: People who work on the language and are heavily depending on
> it were involved in it. Announcement to media was made shortly prior to
> help major Perl outlets spread the message correctly.
>
>
> I am aware this answer might not be enough for you. You might disagree
> with this path entirely. I understand that, but I cannot change it. It
> is how we chose to do it.
>
>
>
> >
> > Per my original question, would you please go into more detail on why
> > perl5-porters was intentionally insulated from this decision?
>
>
> You can read this in my response both to Leon and Craig, as well as the
> comment above. If those answers are not sufficient, let me know.
>
>
> Please do separate the reasons themselves from whether you agree with them.
>
>
>
> >
> > Could you also clarify why you felt it necessary to mislead the list
> > about the existence of these plans in the post I linked?
> >
> > <http://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/257448>
>
>
> I strongly resent the way you express this. There was no "misleading" of
> the list. It was correct that this option is available. I did not want
> to share yet that we will likely be doing this. At that time, it was
> still a strongly debated topic. Many conversations, even after the plan
> was reviewed and revised several times, raised perhaps changing it yet
> again (like to Perl 34). None of what I wrote in the email contradicts
> it or misleads.
>
>
> If anything, my email had hinted at it, at best. To reiterate, I
> strongly resent how you are presenting this.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Everyone that was involved with this was in a shared file and
> >> viewable by everyone else. It was clear who was involved.
> >
> > Well, now that the changes the group intends to make are public, would
> > you tell *us* who was involved, and how they were selected?
>
>
> To be completely open, the way you phrased this email, I am concerned
> that this will lead to more aggressive responses such as this one. Core
> Perl developers have endured enough aggressiveness for a lifetime. I
> will reach out to the group to get their explicit permission to publicly
> share who is in this group. I will note this group includes people who
> are frequent contributors (such as Dave Mitchell, Tony Cook, Karl
> Williamson, Jim Keenan, Todd Rinaldo, etc.), people from toolchain
> (Karen Etheridge, Leon Timmermans - who fits the previous group as
> well), and representatives of other vendors (primarily Debian).
>
>
> Sawyer.
--
Kent
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next