Working groups: "Bugs" and "Lib" (was Re: p5p)

According to Russ Allbery:
> It might be worth considering similarly directing perlbug traffic to
> a separate mailing list and just making sure people move the resulting
> discussions to the main list as appropriate.

I like this idea.
Nat, I suggest that we'll eventually need a "Bugs" working group.

> [In the GCC project,] The C library and the C compiler are discussed
> independently and this generally works.  Can the Perl library and
> the Perl interpreter similarly be discussed independently?

I think so.
Nat, I suggest that we will need a "Lib" working group, handling the
creation and management of the standard library.  IMO, it should be
formed as soon as the language definition is slushy (not entirely
frozen).  The language will largely define the library by omission.

> The standardization of C and the implementation are discussed
> separately.  Is it possible to do this with Perl?  Can discussions
> of syntax changes or additions be usefully discussed separate from
> the core implementation?

It's hard to separate the language from its implementation.  However,
it's not impossible to separate implementation ideas from the
language.  There already exists the embryo of a working group for Perl
6 guts (OK, "internals", but I like "guts" better).  It's chaired by
Dan Sugalski.  I think its mailing list will host the "what structure
layout?" kind of questions, thus reducing the clutter in discussions
elsewhere about language design.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg              - a.k.a. -              <[email protected]>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
    but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early."  // MST3K