Re: comments on traffic so far

At 16:49 -0400 2000.07.23, brian d foy wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Brad Clawsie wrote:
>
>> if it is intended to be reactive, is there any idea of what RFCs will be
>> coming our way and when?
>
>my proposal was meant as a way for absolutely anyone to submit proposals
>on anything related to Perl 6.  Perl 6 is a community effort, so there
>should be a way for anyone to make a valid proposal.
>
>so, if you have something that you want to see in Perl 6, follow Kurt's
>example - put a proposal together and post it. :)

I think much of the discussion on this list is utterly useless (from the
point of view of this list).  Specifics about what Perl 6 will be are
offtopic for this list, which is about bootstrapping the process of
developing Perl 6, not about developing Perl 6 or discussing what it will
be.  With the hundreds upon hundreds of posts in the last few days, most
people can't even meaningfully consider the content of the off-topic posts,
let alone the on-topic ones that are buried beneath.

LALR, glib, licenses, perl writing perl, what you want to see stay or go in
Perl, typeglobs, etc. are all off-topic topics.  Please desist.  Maybe all
of these things are the greatest things since sliced bread, but goshdarnit
they don't belong here.  Most of the traffic on this list shouldn't be
here.  It is almost all good, interesting stuff, but it is for another
place.

-- 
Chris Nandor       |     [email protected]      |     http://pudge.net/
Andover.Net        | [email protected] | http://slashcode.com/