Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Well, as I suggested once before (but it was probably premature at the
> time), I think people should start retracting RFC's that they don't
> think are wins, or that the general consensus is against. I'm going to
> retract 3 of my own today.
Good for you. That is a very community spirited and sensible approach.
I'm sure that you will get the thanks and appreciation of everyone for
doing this - you'll certainly get mine! I hope many more people take
note of your gutsy lead and follow it.
> Finally, one thing I'd like to add is this: Just because many of us
> haven't been on p5p for the past many years doesn't necessarily mean
> we're inexperienced with conquering challenging projects. I'm not going
> to claim to be in the same class as Larry, Tom, Randal, or any of the
> other hardcore Perl hackers - and I certainly will never pretend to be -
> but that doesn't mean I can't potentially contribute some pretty useful
> ideas and code to the project. I think the p5p'ers should be ecstatic
> that so many people came out to "try out" for the p6 team. This is a
> great opportunity for lots of new blood to be infused into the Perl
> development force.
I'm sure that your mail will have put you high up on the list of
'promising fresh blood' :-) Please don't take my original commnents as
being directed at you personally - your mail clearly shows that you are
one of the people it *does't* apply to. I have detected traces of 'I'll
submit an RFC, and then you will *have* to listen to me' in some
people's approach to the whole process. This is *not* good. Your
sensible approach - run an idea up, and if it gets shot at enough,
retire it - is a lead that hopefully others will follow. I kept looking
at the ever-increasing number of often conflicting RFCs (as you have
identified) with an increasing sense of foreboding, as none of them
seemed to be subject to the effects of natural selection and becoming
extinct.
Once again, Thanks!
Alan Burlison
