Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: When comment turns into disaster

by Tux (Canon)
on Jul 06, 2009 at 17:27 UTC ( [id://777606]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: When comment turns into disaster
in thread When comment turns into disaster

The disaster in my perception is the fact that a single person is able to chase away one of the most capable persons in our community. The rest of the community has not been able to stop this from happening.

I myself was most annoyed by the constant comparison between perl5 and perl6. There is just very very few common parts in the two projacts and picking on a release schedule or backwards compatability is not nice when you compare a project that has built up a huge history against a project that has no real production uses yet.

Some people obviously missed the respect for Raphael's decisions. He was chosen to make them. Of course you can argue or debate but in the end we as a community have chosen him to make these decisions. Accept that.

The new pumpking will need to have overview and knowledge, both technical and socially. I obviously do not fit.


Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: When comment turns into disaster
by webfiend (Vicar) on Jul 06, 2009 at 20:14 UTC
    I myself was most annoyed by the constant comparison between perl5 and perl6. There is just very very few common parts in the two projacts and picking on a release schedule or backwards compatability is not nice when you compare a project that has built up a huge history against a project that has no real production uses yet.

    This is a valid point, but it wasn't that long ago that the complaint was flipped. Perl 5 seemed active and lively, while the Perl 6 project was perceived as doomed by most of those who bothered thinking about it at all. Back then we were told by Perl 6 defenders that it was unfair to compare a language with a large dedicated user base to a language which was still being designed - and only by a handful of people at that.

    Now Rakudo & Parrot are presenting regular public releases while Perl 5 is not. Now we're told by Perl 5 defenders that it's unfair to compare a language with huge backward compatibility concerns to a language which has not seen widespread use in a production environment.

    Both claims were valid, in the sense that it's unfair to compare two different languages with two different cultures. We do it anyways. We can't help it - it's in our nature. I was one of the people complaining about the lack of a Perl 6 in the early 2000's. Now it's 2009 and I'm one of the people complaining about the lack of Perl 5 updates. Not the only person complaining, and far from the loudest. I am one of the complainers, though.

    I complain because I love Perl in whatever form it takes and want to see more of it. I want to see Perl excel. I want to see 5.10.1 and 5.12.0 and beyond. I think my colleagues should be excited about Rakudo and Parrot and Perl 5 and Moose and Catalyst, instead of staring at me blankly and saying that the default installed Perl 5 is good enough for the system scripting tasks they've relegated it to.

    But yeah, I realize that things aren't going to get better just because I complain. Most of the complainers - and there are many, not just one against a monolithic community - also contribute something of value to the Perl world. I'll try a little harder to do the same.

Re^3: When comment turns into disaster
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jul 06, 2009 at 20:08 UTC
    ... a single person is able to chase away one of the most capable persons in our community.

    That's a very selective reading of things. I explained my goals for Perl 5. I asked Rafael specific questions and offered to discuss technical details and to accept any correction for mistakes I've made.

    What should I have done differently?

    {Picking} on a release schedule or backwards compatability is not nice when you compare a project that has built up a huge history against a project that has no real production uses yet.

    Plenty of other projects have regular release schedules and deprecation cycles, including the Linux kernel, OpenBSD, Fedora, Ubuntu, GNOME, Wine, and Samba. I chose to discuss Parrot and Rakudo because I work on those projects and feel more qualified discussing my personal experiences there than on projects to which I do not contribute regularly.

    Some people obviously missed the respect for Raphael's decisions. He was chosen to make them.

    If I recall correctly, he replaced hv, who resigned under some pressure (most of it not public) for not releasing a new version of Perl.

      That's a very selective reading of things. I explained my goals for Perl 5. I asked Rafael specific questions and offered to discuss technical details and to accept any correction for mistakes I've made.

      It is not selective reading. It is a conclusion. I carefully stayed out of all release related discussions. It is way too complex. And, to use Jarkko's words, I did not want to get dragged into the vortex. I'm a long time perl contributor, and to keep a healthy state of mind, I try to restrict to the focus areas that were assigned to me: perl configuration and hints. I try to do my best and am always open to suggestions, but when given this responsibility, I can also - within reason - sometimes say "no", which I occasionally did. I hope with enough explanation.

      What I understand from all the information that I did read, and I admit that I do not have the full picture, you and rgs did not agree. No problem with that. More people disagree, see Gerard Goossen: he started Kurilla because he did not like the way the rest of perl5 was moving on. But he gave back patches to the `real' perl5 based on his findings, and there has never been an argument/quarrel. Gerard stopped complaining and started something else.

      What should I have done differently?

      In my perception you went too far in trying to prove that rgs way of dealing with the job he accepted was wrong. Time and time again. I was there at the meeting where Hugo told the perl5 porters that he wanted someone else to take over, and Raphael volunteered. There are not enough people around that have all the qualities that he has. You may dislike some of them, but I for sure do not have most of them. The most important of them all: overview. The community accepted him as Pumpking and perl5 went on.

      Personally I will miss this constant factor. He might be more conservative than you or me (I also would make 5.12 have all the features be default), but those were his decisions based on a lot of thought. I never complained. I might have tried to convince him, but not beyond pressure points. e.g. I really tried to keep the "err" keyword.

      An alternative road for you could have been to put rejected patches on CPAN, add some docs and tell why it is/was such a great idea. I have maintained the defined-or patch, which was officially rejected for the 5.8.x track, since 5.8.0 and all my perl builds included it. The quality was good enough for it to be documented in the perl5 core.

      I do not ask apologies. Shit like this happens. Certainly when volunteers are involved. Maybe none of this would have happened if an eye-to-eye meeting could have been arraanged to talk this all through. Real-life discussions/debates - a.o.t. e-mail/irc/blog/... - quite often help to make people understand eachothers standpoints.


      Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
        In my perception you went too far in trying to prove that rgs way of dealing with the job he accepted was wrong.

        I don't understand this. What have I written that suggests that I am trying to prove that anyone is doing a bad job?

        I like Rafael. I respect Rafael. I believe Rafael and the other pumpkings deserve far more respect and appreciation than they get.

        I believe the Perl 5 development process is unsustainable, that it hurts the further development of Perl 5, and that it burns out volunteers while discouraging new developers. I don't like that. I have concerns about the future of Perl (and not just Perl 5). I want to see the language and the community succeed, and I invest my time and resources and, yes, even my code to those ends.

        I'll take my lumps for saying stupid things and for saying wrong things and for losing my cool sometimes and saying mean, sarcastic, and hurtful things. Tell me what they are and I'll apologize for them. I'll take that blame.

        In return, I get told to shut up and go away. I get told to write code instead of talking. I get called a liar and a conspirator. I get labeled deaf and hysterical. I get accused of libel, of trolling, of marketing (?), and of deliberate sabotage. I get threatened with having certain existing accepted patches forcibly removed. I get called dangerously naïve, someone with stupid, crappy ideas only inexperienced novices could possibly believe. I get accused of having hidden agendas, including trying to destroy someone's volunteer work by chasing him away. I get told I should be pleased because I made someone quit working on something he and I both work on and want to see succeed.

        I refuse to take that blame.

        (If you really want to drive someone away from a project, I believe it's more effective to attack them personally rather than discussing technical decisions and goals and priorities. That's why I try so very often never to attack people.)

        Update: Added "deaf", "hysterical", "crappy", and "stupid".

      What should I have done differently?

      Maybe done it sooner? Prepared your interactions better? Accepted decisions already made even if you disagreed with them?

        Accepted decisions already made even if you disagreed with them?

        This is gonna sound like I'm taking sides, I'm not. I'm sad Raphael feels the need to step down. In this case chromatic has repeatedly described a good faith belief that the current direction of Perl 5 dooms it to heat death. Accepting this course if one cared about Perl would be impossible. Right or wrong, polite or otherwise, he is acting with integrity as I see it.

      A similar point about other open source projects came up in the discussion following http://consttype.blogspot.com/2009/07/time-based-releases-in-open-source.html and Raphael countered by saying that big open source projects with regular release schedules and deprecation cycles have paid developers to help make that happen.

      I don't know if he is entirely right, but your list contains no counterexamples to his hypothesis. But it is obvious regular releases are easier if you have a release manager for that purpose, like Samba has in Karolin Seeger. (She is sponsored by a German company named SerNet GmbH.)

        Raphael countered by saying that big open source projects with regular release schedules and deprecation cycles have paid developers to help make that happen.

        Dave Mitchell has received a TPF grant to make 5.10.1 happen. Booking.com also gave TPF $50,000 for Perl 5 development.

        But it is obvious regular releases are easier if you have a release manager for that purpose....

        Our experience with Parrot is that regular releases are easier -- even with volunteers -- if you have a dozen people who can make any given release, even if they have only a day's notice.

        I don't believe the problem is money.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://777606]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (9)
As of 2024-03-28 14:46 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found