Front page | perl.p5ee |
Postings from November 2001
Call for leaders, was Moving forward ideas
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Stephen Adkins
Date:
November 7, 2001 10:18
Subject:
Call for leaders, was Moving forward ideas
Message ID:
3.0.6.32.20011107132555.008b3690@pop3.norton.antivirus
Hi,
John and Aaron have good ideas.
This e-mail is a formal request for leaders to step forward so that
people can "choose their dictator".
* Who is willing to step forward to be one of the effort's leaders?
A leader is someone who is doing something rather than talking about it.
A leader is someone who basically would be working on this stuff anyway
because he needs it (and therefore is motivated to persist with the
effort).
A leader is someone who is willing to spell out his proposal, act on it,
and take arrows in the side from all the people who think he's doing it
wrong.
I qualify, so I volunteer.
And I will be working on this whether anyone "elects" me or not.
Anyone can see the stuff I have been doing at
http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee
It is also not hard to follow.
I have been incorporating many of the good ideas which have come across
this list.
Many have viewpoints which differ from mine on how this should be done.
(Honestly, did we ever think that we would all agree before we wrote a
line of code?)
That's why Gerald Richter is currently working with Nathan to get a CVS
repository set up at perl.org so that we can prototype our work and
prove the concepts through code before we promote a single file to the
P5EE namespace.
If we can identify a few leaders, let them each begin their descriptions
of what P5EE is and publish it as I have so that we may discuss it.
Stephen
At 12:33 PM 11/7/2001 -0500, John Napiorkowski wrote:
>Sounds like a reasonable process. To be honest, we need something. I've
>been following (or trying to follow) this list since the perl.org posting,
>and finding it hard to know what is going on. I don't know about the rest
>of you, but this is all becoming very hard to follow, even with the
>archives. I feel bad for the person who gets elected to make sense of all
>the ideas generated in the past week, but it really needs to be done.
>
>In the old days, when the Greeks had a crisis or something that needed
>doing, they got together and elected a dictator, who was charged with
>getting the job done. This dictator would be term limited, and would often
>have a specific list of items. Sometimes it would be vague (Protect us from
>the Spartans) but often the list would be very detailed. Choosing someone
>with both the time and the technical knowledge to get this process going,
>and then returning it to some of the voting schemes we've outlined above,
>might not be a bad idea.
>
>Or maybe it's just me, in which case the above makes little sense.
>
>__John Napiorkowski
>
>Aaron Johnson wrote:
>
>> I have a proposal for moving forward that I would like to share.
>>
>> Step 1) 7 days - We need 1 to 2 people (core) to write out the goals
>> (Matt?) for p5ee based on feedback so far. This road map can be as
>> detailed or vague as the creator feels is needed to promote step two.
>>
>> Step 2) 14 days - Once areas are identified sub groups inside of the
>> p5ee structure will be created, these sub groups will work through
>> (independently at first) how they feel their sections should be built.
>> This should follow the ideas laid out by the 'core', but they are
>> allowed to stray if those ideas appeared flawed and the reason for doing
>> it another way can be clearly explained to 'core'.
>>
>> Step 3) 2 days - Everyone from the sub groups will present to 'core' a
>> list of praises, concerns, and additions for how the system should be
>> put together.
>>
>> Step 4) 7 days - The 'core' will publish a revised structure/goals
>> document based on current knowledge. This will include at this point
>> *concretes*, that is items that will be enforced to insure project
>> success ( a style and variable (method, class etc.) naming convention
>> etc.).
>>
>> Step 5) 1 day - This is presented to the sub groups and they revise
>> there "idea" code or scrape it completely based on the revised
>> structure/goals document.
>>
>> Step 6) 45 days - Once all the sub groups sign off, the structure/goals
>> is released to the 'world' and more people can join and more code can be
>> written. That is to say that we make a broader statement and advertise,
>> if you will, in other mailing lists and have a more formal web site.
>>
>> Step 7) 45 day freeze. After 45 days of work all development will
>> freeze for a 7 day review process. The 'core' will expand at this point
>> to include the strongest contributors from the sub groups. This new
>> 'core' will review progress to date and determine if continued effort is
>> productive. If it isn't then it will up to general members to determine
>> if someone wants to pick up the torch and try anyway. If it IS then a
>> road map will be created and process similar to this one will be
>> repeated.
>>
>> Aaron Johnson
>
>
>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next