I turns out I completely misunderstood how it was used... It was for nominations only, so the score mattered much less than simply being on the list, as I expect the committee has been looking in some detail at who the people on the list were and what they did for the community.
Congratulations to all the recipients, this is very well deserved.
]]>Jim Keenan
]]>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?
]]>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.
]]>To further, as the author of berrybrew who relies on several aspects of the site to manage Perls, might I be included in advance of site changes so I might better prepare?
]]>