> It's possible you're speaking of one or more of the working group chairs,
> in which case your criticism may well be valid. This, though, is one of the
> cases where you may need to cope (as a volunteer project one needs to work
> with what's available). You can also speak to folks a step or two up the
> ladder, such as it is--Kirrily's a sane and sensible person to deal with
> for any of the -language sub-groups, and if she's not, then Nat *certainly*
> is. And complaints about me can always go to him too.
Nobody's picking on you, Dan.
> Honestly it looks like a good part of the problem we're having is that
> people are treating things that aren't particularly important to be far
> more important than they really are.
I don't feel that this is appropriate or accurate. The emminent takeover of the
perl language is _not_ a trivial matter. It is not a scare tactic to use this
language, since all of the proof is in the public domain and available by
simple deduction. The inappropriate action is not to act, and the inappropriate
verbage and misinformation is that there is either not a problem or that
nothing can be done about it.
If someone else were willing to take the soapbox with different words but a
similar result, the result of the protection of our language from monopolists,
and positive action to move towards more positive advocacy for perl's benefit,
I would be happy to step off and keep my mouth shut.
This thread has been moved and re-Subjected. Please respect the listmaster's
wishes and keep it in here.
