> From: David Malkovsky <sasdbm@unx.sas.com>
>
> Tim,
>
> Despite at least 2 followup message trying to explaining to the list
> owner that all I wanted was my name (and only my name) removed from
> the ntperl list it seems like more than that has happened. My intent
> was >NOT< to unsubscribe perl5 porters; rather just reduce my incoming
> email.
>
> Please accept my apologies and if there is something I can do to help
> please let me know ... for now I'm going to stay quiet and out of the way.
>
> -dave
Thanks Dave.
> From: Carlo Dapor <dapor@nessie.inf.ethz.ch>
>
> Dear Mister Bunce,
>
> Thanks for the mail.
>
> > It would have been polite to have discussed this first. I gave time for
> > comments when I first suggested it and I only received favorable replies.
> > Three people does not make a majority.
>
> I must be missing the thread, I guess. Am I interpreting it correctly, that
> all perl5-porters list member are to be on an ntperl mailing list ?
In effect yes.
> The thing is I am not interested in NT. To me the contribution to the
> p5p list are more than sufficient. Problems that show up with NT do not
> concern me at all. If they are discussed on the separate list, that's fine
> for me. If some of the topics are of interest to any platform, then they
> will show up on the p5p list, right ?
The perl5-porters mailing lists exists, originally and primarily, to assist
people in porting perl to other platforms.
> A word to the events. To me it was like an undemocratic act, to be put on a
> list without being asked. Joining a list is a free offer. What would You do
> if I put You on a local cinema mailing list for movies here in Zuerich ?
> We discuss which movie(s) we go and watch on which day ever.
> I am sure You would have no fun at all, since we communicate in any language
> other than English. Let alone, if the whole p5p list were added (:.
I asked. I waited. No one complained. Several people said it was a very good idea.
(I'll skip over the undemocratic manner in which perl5-porters was unsubscribed.)
I assume, not unreasonably I think, that people on the perl5-porters mailing
list have an interest in porting perl to other platforms and helping to
ensure that perl is ported in the best manner possible. Porting often involves
trade-offs which are subtle and need to be discussed in depth by as many
knowledgeable people as pratical.
It was obvious to me that many perl5-porters were not on the ntperl mailing
list and that most perl5-porters were not aware of how the ntperl port
was progressing (or in what directions!).
I'm quite sure that Perl for Win32 _will_ become one of the most commonly
used perl environments. It is _vital_ that the porting is done well and
the issues it throws up discussed in depth. If Perl for Win32 was to
diverge significantly from the standard perl everyone would suffer.
It's just too important not to be dealt with directly on perl5-porters.
The cost of some extra NT specific messages is not a significant one.
> > I've CC'd this to the above named people (and perl5-porters) and I look
> > forward to discussing it with them.
> >
> > Meanwhile please leave perl5-porters subscribed to ntperl.
>
> Why do not those be added who really want to ? And not the whole list ?
> I know that 3 out of 80(?) are neglectable; and furthermore, me in special,
> I am not a very active participant.
>
> You force me to add some lines to my .procmail recipe (:, that'll be no
> problem.
That's fine.
> I appreciate Your discussion initiative. Perl is a powerful thing, too
> bad if its rising would stop.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> D'r siit willkomme (You are welcome, in Bernese).
>
> Ciao, derweil,
>
> > Tim.
>
> -carlo
Overall this is really just a symptom of the breadth of discussion on
perl5-porters and the number of non-porters it has attracted.
Of all the topics that this list discusses, porting to new platforms must not
be sidelined. It's central to maintaining the integrity of the perl 'standard'.
Tim.