David Grove wrote:
> Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
> Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
> where we were before, with a core group free to sit back unchallenged on > their
>complacency and let Perl go to rot. To accomplish a "community
> contributed" Perl, this way of thinking, the elitism, the os-centrism,
> the corporate control, must have checks and balances of some type.
>
> I don't disagree that the developers should have closed off lists.
> However, I don't agree that the developers should be able to ignore the > community
>within a closed-off little clique.. If they can, then a
> "community contributed" and community based Perl is a farce, and cannot > be
>otherwise.
I think that it is important that the developers have some free method of
communication without being bogged down by insignificant details. I see no
reason that perl6-meta will not continue to be a free list so that people can
discuss issues relating to perl. i would assume that the 'core' developers would
continue to monitor it and address issues and concerns as they arose. i don't
see how having closed lists for developers conflicts with having a 'open'
discussion of perl and its current state and direction on perl meta. if you feel
that someone or some group is taking perl in a direction that is bad you should
be freely able to mount a storming of the bastille on perl6-meta.
pretty much like you are doing now :-)
so in short it seems like you agree that developers should have some low traffic
mechanism of communication (a closed read-only list would seem to do this from
my point of view), but you also want a mechanism to discuss where perl6 is going
etc, i think that perl6-meta does this and will continue to do this (feel free
to correct me)
peter
