Re: Catalyst team change

But the minimalist onward-and-upward pat on the back (lauded as "professional") teaches us nothing.

There's plenty to learn from it, if you choose to. It can teach you that there are alternatives to an endlessly escalating flamewar. It can teach you that irreconcilable personality clashes do not have to destroy projects. Civility is often in short supply on mailing lists for open source projects, and on the Internet in general. Personally, I'd rather see more of it, not less.

Comment on Re: Catalyst team change

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Catalyst team change by castaway (Parson) on May 04, 2006 at 16:05 UTC
Well said there perrin, I couldn't agree more. I would also say to the OP, that I don't seem to remember many (heated or otherwise) perlmonks discussions where the soul of an entire framework was in the balance.. Discussing for the sake of it is one thing, trying to decide the fate of a project is another. Also, the Catalyst discussing was taking place realtime, on IRC, thus it would have been a lot harder to preview content, consider, post only when really sure, etc, since by that time the moment is gone.. Thus heated discussions would have been a lot more so. Civility and mediated discussion is definitely a plus, in my book, when things are at stake. Having them closed/private just means people can discuss properly. C.	[reply]
Re^3: Catalyst team change by monsieur_champs (Curate) on May 08, 2006 at 11:02 UTC
I'm sorry to say, but this time I can only see PAX ROMANA. It would be better understood and considered something professional (in the true sense of the word) if the conversations (even mediated) toke place in public, as expected from a proeminent open source project like Catalyst. This was a big lost for open-source projects, IMHO. -- monsieur_champs	[reply]
Re^2: Catalyst team change by bart (Canon) on May 05, 2006 at 15:16 UTC
It can teach you that irreconcilable personality clashes do not have to destroy projects. So is that all it was, "personality clashes"? Jeeze, I would have thought some technical visions of the ideal world, would have been behind it. I'm hoping this is more than a brainless contest of armwrestling. I agree with the OP of this thread, covering up all the technical reasons behind a shroud of polite silence, is going to help noone. So, what's the difference between Catalyst and the new MoJo? I have no idea. And a situation like this one is not going to help anyone, especially not the outsiders. Get rid of the mystery. If not, it can only hurt both projects.	[reply]
Re^3: Catalyst team change by perrin (Chancellor) on May 05, 2006 at 21:09 UTC
I'm sure that if and when MoJo is created, the differences will be fully explained. The very idea of making Catalyst into something significanly different at this point was probably a main point of contention. Users on the list frequently complain about API changes.	[reply]


P is for Practical
	PerlMonks