http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=11131182


in reply to Pumpking resignation

This really made me sad. I liked Sawyer X, I liked his enthusiasm, and I liked the vision he presented at the last Perl and Raku conference.

Technical skills are not the major part here, I fear. It's about soft skills, about managing the process and the people involved; and as we can see, this is in fact the part that was too hard.

I'm still kind of shocked. I'm feeling a bit guilty, as I haven't communicated with Sawyer for a long time, so he might get the impression that most of the community shared the views of a few most loud members. The lockdown situation didn't help with interpersonal relations, either.

I started learning Python few weeks ago. In hindsight, it was a hunch or divine inspiration :-(

map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]||0,1}[\*||{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^*ARGV,3]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Pumpking resignation
by syphilis (Bishop) on Apr 14, 2021 at 12:54 UTC
    ... so he might get the impression that most of the community shared the views of a few most loud members

    Yes, I think that can happen when those that incessantly question and raise objections to the plans being made are allowed to continue unchallenged.
    I've seen numerous posts made in relation to the steering committee activities, and to the perl7 plans, where I've thought "just shut the fuck up, and let them get on with it !!".
    But, of course, I've said nothing. After all, I'm certainly no expert.

    It's sad ... I felt that perl was in good hands while SawyerX was at the helm, and yet I've done nothing to encourage him to stay there.

    Cheers,
    Rob

      I've seen various posts and actions recently which are totally the opposite. One person making a decision, no discussion to be had, despite many people with vested interests trying to point out that there are better courses of action. An example Regarding the closure of rt.cpan. Fortunately enough push back occurred and something was done about it. From what I understand based on people actually doing the work on perl core/toolchain, rather than making managerial decisions, this has been the case with a lot of the decisions made about perl7, some of the people involved commented on the HN thread linked to earlier, e.g. Christian Walde have documented the situation well. Letting people "just get on with it" isn't always the best idea.

        Letting people "just get on with it" isn't always the best idea

        I felt that the arguments had been put forward and it was time to proceed.
        If we have to wait for everyone to agree then we'll never get beyond perl5.

        The idea of never getting beyond version 5 doesn't really bother me as perl5 provides everything I need - I even have workarounds for the bits I don't like.
        However, I was actually excited when the perl7 announcement was made, and I was looking forward to seeing it released and finding out just how it differed from current perl.

        I'm not so excited any more.

        Cheers,
        Rob

        An example Regarding the closure of rt.cpan. Fortunately enough push back occurred and something was done about it.

        To be clear, rt.cpan.org got new life not because people pushed back, but because some people stepped up to take it over. Without action, no amount of verbal pushback would have changed a thing.

        xoxo,
        Andy
        I've seen various posts and actions recently which are totally the opposite. One person making a decision, no discussion to be had, despite many people with vested interests trying to point out that there are better courses of action.

        These 3 sentences produce contradiction. I don't think marto calls balls and strikes impartially.