Sorry just thinking of my current government.
I agree that there should be a democratic mandate and a governance structure and some system of controls to prevent idiosyncratic systems of governance forming.
However systems are "made by the people who turn up and do things. So did we fail you, or did you fail us? I don't know." However I do want you to turn up.
It is good to have change. It is good to have evolution. It is good to hear real passion from people.
]]>Maybe our failure here is that we didn't give you a better way for your voice to be heard. For that. I am truly sorry.
You have a voice.
I try to read as much of the comments and posts as is possible. But you can find me and I will respond. So tell me how we can do better? I have a fairly tidy platform to promote a voice. Let me help you.
]]>Also. This borders on almost assuming nepotism. That's not the case. Most of the work has been done not by self-appointed, but because no one else was doing it.
That's likely not the best solution. But nothing gets done if no one turns up to do it.
]]>I have known both Sawyer and Todd to be benevolent and kind. I have never assumed they are angels who tread the light clouds of the fantastic; but to state they have never exhibited the quality of benevolence, that's bollocks mate. Also, in regard to BDFL - neither of them are, so double oops, still doesn't work as a never - maybe James Bond can give us all a Never Say Never Again.
The use of a reduction to the absurd is a fair technique but it doesn't scan so well here. As it isn't their nature and they don't have that position.
I am not seeking to call you out. I just didn't see this as anything but ad hominem. I see you as more than that. So maybe that's my fault. I see you as making a better response than this.
]]>You will support reforms then I assume. Giving members of the perl community a voice? TPF membership, TPF elections etc.
I have no membership in TPF either other than being a conference organizer (which carries no membership). I openly welcome you to come volunteer to organize the next TPC (online or in person) when it happens next June.
If you sat people down and said "how should we run our language in 2020" it would never look like what TPF and #p5p look like.
1st off, I'd like to make sure you understand that TPF is a support organization for Perl and Raku and has no governance over either.
I think an absolute democracy is a formula for disaster. To my knowledge, no government runs that way today.
That said, I very much think that Perl needs a better governance model than "Larry gets absolute veto". The reality is this hasn't been the situation for over 20 years. Larry is also on record (at least he felt this way back in 2000) that Perl 5 Porters isn't the best way to develop Perl.
This isn't really the best forum for discussing what it should be. I would be up for a conversation on the Perl 5 Porters mailing list of what you would like to see instead. I too think it is past time.
I hope to see you there! Todd
]]>By your logic, anything run by a BDFL would be abandoned.
The "B" in "BDFL" stands for benevolent. Neither Sawyer, nor you Todd, exhibit this quality.
Thanks! My comment was not about Perl's governance so much as most other open source projects. Some have a complex governance but the majority are managed by a select few. Isn't this the common case?
]]>It might be so.
However, assuming it to be the implied rather than the assumed (or default) is perhaps a misunderstanding.
the internal sarcasm here is those who wish to rebuild, to evolve, object the changes to the original form. Those who have built and maintained, object to the adherence of a constant, or common, universal state.
Honestly i think Gloucester would be looking sideways at flies, wanton boys and gods right now.
]]>So as a person who has toiled for a foundation that doesnt even extend membership too you, why not support opening TPF up to membership? Who in turn electing board members? Why not support a model that engages with the perl community and the few remaining businesses that rely on perl?
In 2020 aren't there better models for enagement than saying "join this email list and read this irc channel".
The current "model" has resulted in Perl about to fall off of TIOBE as companies abandon it, notwithstanding no significant feature gap compared to other comparable languages.
So whilst there is enthusiasm for change - as the above post, prior posts and the conversations on reddit and other forums demonstrate - there is rapidly declining confidence that making changes is being managed in a consultative, constructive and open way.
Put simply. Which model is more likely to grow perl?
Perl 7 will succeed if many people welcome it and everyone supports it.
However, I think the remaining users of Perl will remain because of the stability of that Perl.
If, in reality, the move to Perl 7 doesn't work, I think it's an opportunity to reconsider adopting "use v7".
I have a very similar thinking of Leon.
]]>