How much does one have to donate to have a right to muse about Perl 6 development and reach negative conclusions?
I'm not serious about that, but I mean to make a point. We have seen a number of posts here criticizing the (lack of) speed of Perl 6 development, and we have also seen a lot of rhetoric discrediting those people based on their lack of contributions.
Some people can contribute, some cannot. Are a person's arguments legitimate only to the exact degree of his contribution? To rephrase, is that which I have said less valid or fair, in and of itself, simply because I have written it instead of someone else?
One could suggest that my lack of contribution has limited my insight and thus caused inaccuracies in my points. Of course that would require one to actually identify, claim, and dismantle inaccuracies.
Alternatively one can just suggest that I have failed to merit a right to make those points in the first place. | [reply] |
How much does one have to donate to have a right to muse about Perl 6 development and reach negative conclusions?
Anyone willing to pontificate about any perceived deficiency of the output of an entirely community-driven project where everyone doing the work is a volunteer severely misunderstands the nature of community-driven development.
Unlike projects where people wave money and resources and paid employees have to do what the people with the money say, volunteers only work because they want to. Everyone working on Parrot and Perl 6 right now is just a normal average person just like you. The only difference is that they actually did something instead of sitting around and complaining that nothing gets done.
I don't care if you don't have the time or the talent or the inclination to contribute. You can still use the code anyway. You can believe what you want about the code. Just don't expect anyone to care about the ingratitude of people who complain and never contribute about projects run entirely by volunteers who get absolutely nothing from you and ask absolutely nothing from you.
How do you think the work gets done though?
| [reply] |
I am sorry that you perceive my comments so negatively, as an expression of ingratitude. I have been grateful and admiring of the vast expanse of Perl, CPAN, and other resources that I have had a chance to use extensively. I am sure I will be very impressed the more and more I can use Perl 6 and associated projects. The fact that I am willing to talk about it, and to pose questions that are less than positive, does not mean I am ingrateful.
I realize it is a volunteer project. People are contributing their hobby time to this passion, in different forms. I understand what a volunteer is, and I don't need patronizing.
I would debate your claim that I severely misunderstand the nature of community-driven development. I get it. I find you saying that I sit around and complain to be just as arrogant and unfair. I do stuff, I get stuff done, I accomplish things, and I do that while investing my time in both university and work before hobbies. I just don't get stuff done in the Perl 6 project, and as a humble outsider to the development of Perl 6 I am musing, and hoping for intelligent answers, about the rate of development in this case.
Your entire post is about volunteers. If we could not expect waving money to succeed, could we expect waving volunteers? Is our stock of volunteers far shorter than was expected or is considered necessary to make timely process? Is the workload simply too large? If that sounds outrageous, and there are issues beyond just the number of volunteers, then perhaps you could offer insight into those issues, instead of just mentioning volunteers in reference to how I am not one of them.
| [reply] |
