Why isn't it possible to create a process where

• interest groups are identified
• a common strategy is outlined
• RFCs are formulated with a test suite
• a quality management looks over proof of concept and the implementation

I always thought that my lack of understanding of P5P discussions is due to my limited knowledge.

But I'm certain now that there is a serious and frustrating communication problem which needs to be resolved politically.

And "politically" means a discussion and decision process which is transparent, reliable and efficient.

Probably with mediators channeling the diplomacy and questioning the terminology.

Update

I'm totally pro dispute just in a scientific way, i.e sober and non emotional.

Here's your discussion: https://github.com/Perl/perl5/wiki/SC-Notes-2020-07-12

You can still help since the group "Would benefit from volunteer developers (who are subscribed to the vision)", as long as you don't forget to "actively support the leadership".

#CamelJugend

Oh great Godwin's law! :)

Look I still think (have the illusion) that it's possible to express differing opinions and still stay friends.

> leadership

I'm for leadership as long as the process stays transparent and permeable.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Please note that Liz and Wendy are *not* part of this discussion in any way whatsoever. I did reply the other day to a post by chromatic, indicating that *parsing* in Raku is slow, rather then the whole of Raku. That's it. Please go figure out your shit by yourselves. The elephant in the room "responsible" for all the chaos, has left the room. Liz

I wasn't referring to this discussion.

I was lamenting vitriol in the community.

All the best

- Rolf