From: Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>
Date: 2000-08-04T13:49:02-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:04320] Re: Content of the Perl6 talk

Hi, 

Cameron Laird wrote:
> Conrad Schneiker  <schneik@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
> >Big question: is anyone discussing these sorts of things with anyone
> >directly involved in the Perl6 effort? Does anyone know of any good
> >prospects for ambassadors out there?
> Yes.  It's happening.

Those of you who (1) hope/expect Ruby to become as popular as Perl may
find the following note a preview of possible things to come and/or
those of you who (2) are interested in (possibly stimulating) the
(highly uncertain) prospects for a partially reusable code base that
might one day benefit Ruby may want to track this.

Nathan Torkington writes (Title: "Bootstrap summary: 4 Aug 2000"):

> This is the first summary of the traffic on the bootstrap list,
> covering messages until 4 Aug 2000.
> 
> The task of the list is to find a communiity structure for the
> brainstorming process.  We discussed several solutions, and went with
> a hierarchical mailing list solution.  Each working group (e.g.,
> "language" or "internals") can have sub-groups.  Each group, whether
> top or lower level, has a chair, a deadline, and a mission.  Groups
> must report to their parents on a weekly basis.  There's also a
> perl6-all mailing list, created in response to fears that generalists
> would be left out.
> 
> The current set of mailing lists are: language, internals, stdlib, qa,
> build.  Addition suggestions have been received for meta (discussion
> of process and requests for new mailing lists), licensing,
> documentation, unicode, and regexps mailing lists.  They're being
> weighed by the project leader.  See http://dev.perl.org/lists.shtml
> for a list.
> 
> We discussed the need for these groups to produce documents.  These
> RFCs needed a structure.  Several suggestions were made, and a simple
> format decided (it is at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/meta).  RFCs are
> submitted to the librarian who automatically posts them to the web and
> forwards them to the -announce and appropriate discussion mailing lists. 
> We discussed holding the RFCs on SourceForge, but the urgency meant
> SourceForge's learning curve would have delayed the library too long.
> The librarian will still investigate SourceForge.
> 
> There are proposals to change the name of RFCs on the grounds of
> confusion with Internet RFCs which are standards (our RFCs are merely
> suggestions to Larry), and to add a status field to RFCs to indicate
> whether discussion on them is open or closed.  Further, it is
> suggested that we need some way to register not just interest in a
> proposal, but also disinterest.  These discussions are ongoing.
> 
> bootstrap's heavy traffic has mostly moved to the language and
> internals mailing lists.

http://www.perl.org/perl6/. notes:

For the time being, the Perl 6 developers will communicate through the
perl6-bootstrap mailing list. Send a message to
bootstrap-subscribe@perl.org to subscribe. [This is how I got the above
mail.]

PS: this is also a comp.lang.ruby --> ruby-talk ML test. I didn't get
the last 2 posts by ruby-talk e-mail [4318, 4319], even though I saw
them on comp.lang.ruby. Am I the only one who missed these?
-- 
Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)