I'm afraid I had a family crisis yesterday, else another RFC would have been
submitted.
Part of Perl's problems, a severe internal problem that has external (user
side) consequences, is that Perl does *not* have anyone to speak policy with,
while the community itself is submerged in issues of politics, qliques,
takeovers, monopolists, corruption, collusion, and ulterior motives. The P5P,
an extremely elitist group, composed of the highest "ranking" members of the
perl community, refuses to take responsibility for issues of a serious
political nature, and in fact takes the word of members of subcommunites,
members who's rank is not Tom and whose computer is not Tom's, as FUD and
unimportant, like a gnat on a warthog's ass. It is my most sincere hope that
part of Larry's "sweeping changes" that is to include the revamping of the P5P
itself addresses these issues, and continues to provide a way for the community
to have a voice throughout the P6 development process and into the future. The
Perl-KGB-elite has got to go, and a free republic must replace it. If perl
"high ranks" cannot deal with issues involving such serious problems, and if no
means of giving users a continual direct voice is put into place, the perl
community as a whole would be negligent and irresponsible unto themselves not
to go for a mass exodous to Python, C++, and Java, the three obvious next-bests
without the political red tape and "taxation without representation" (in the
form of moving toward a commercialized Perl).
I share this guy's sentiments perfectly. The perl community has no voice. The
P5P have shown no interest in moving perl to higher ground, or in defending
this community against invasion, corruption, and commercialization against
known and confessed monopolists; but _have_ shown an interest in demonstrating
unfailing devotion to those who have sold us out to the devil, regardless of
the consequences, rather than listening to both sides (especially in issues
involving the corruption of the perl language internals) and making a decision
wether implementing or not implementing changes that lend to corporate
monopolization efforts and have no beneficial effects on the perl language or
have immediate damaging effects on huge parts of its internals.
That the little guy has had historically, and predictably will in the future
have, no voice in fighting this corruption and collusion is among the primary
problems with the Perl language, and poses to undermine the foundation of the
language forever.
On Friday, September 29, 2000 4:19 AM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 09:39:20AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:34:55AM +0000, Ed Mills wrote:
> > > I tried to contribute on this list bu
>
> [You know, I think something went wrong there. Let's try again.]
>
> The RFC process gets you a hotline to Larry on an equal footing with all the
> other RFC authors. What more of a voice did you want?
>
> Sure, people play at politics; ignore them, they're not important. While
> people play at politics, that *by no means* implies that Perl does.
>
> --
> The debate rages on: Is Perl Bachtrian or Dromedary?
