PSC #026 2021-06-25
In attendance: Neil, Nicholas, and Rik
This was our last PSC call with this particular trio. Sad, but time marches ever onward! Rik was on the hook for minutes this week, and was apparently so broken up about the change that he couldn't manage to send them for a full calendar week.
RFCs
The RFC process is moving along with some ups and downs, but we feel like it's generally not a disaster. It needs to continue moving, which means we need to figure out who the RFC editors are. Our first pass answer is: the PSC, plus Nicholas.
We discussed "what are good criteria for future editors":
* demonstrated ability to work with others
* can do "editorial" task even on documents with which the editor disagrees
* has shown reasonable judgement in "what is not a good idea" (as editors are allowed to accept/reject)
* need not be an expert (in design or implementation), but needs to know the limits of own knowledge
* doesn't attempt to argue with decided decisions (without significant new evidence)
* understand perlishness such that they may not agree with every other porter, but their opinions are defensible; that is, some other porter might say "I disagree" but not "what planet are you from?"
Licensing Questions
Discussion of Ry? had us wondering, "Can we package Ry?, under the Boost license?" Rik has asked TPF whether they can get us an opinion from counsel
Other Topics
* C99 — what we want is a document Porting or pod that describes the parts of C we permit. This is already present, ostensibly, in perlhack.pod under "Style". We'll also want to write up the process by which we test things for sufficient portability, which is basically "build a test case that can be smoked everywhere."
* smoke-me branches: the state of these remains (as Jim put it) "complicated"; it would be nice to feel we had someone who was championing an overall fix, but it's also not clear that this can be done by somebody not already very familiar with the situation
* we discussed some MRs (most notably changing how some core libraries use Exporter and dropping the :win32 pseudo-layer); those two are now merged
* we talked about the TPF "Shared Vision of Perl" survey and Neil was to send Andrew Solomon some notes
* I said I'd put together a list of "stuff PSC has said it wants to see happen and need to be carried out", which I have done and will post about shortly.
--
rjbs
In attendance: Neil, Nicholas, and Rik
This was our last PSC call with this particular trio. Sad, but time marches ever onward! Rik was on the hook for minutes this week, and was apparently so broken up about the change that he couldn't manage to send them for a full calendar week.
RFCs
The RFC process is moving along with some ups and downs, but we feel like it's generally not a disaster. It needs to continue moving, which means we need to figure out who the RFC editors are. Our first pass answer is: the PSC, plus Nicholas.
We discussed "what are good criteria for future editors":
* demonstrated ability to work with others
* can do "editorial" task even on documents with which the editor disagrees
* has shown reasonable judgement in "what is not a good idea" (as editors are allowed to accept/reject)
* need not be an expert (in design or implementation), but needs to know the limits of own knowledge
* doesn't attempt to argue with decided decisions (without significant new evidence)
* understand perlishness such that they may not agree with every other porter, but their opinions are defensible; that is, some other porter might say "I disagree" but not "what planet are you from?"
Licensing Questions
Discussion of Ry? had us wondering, "Can we package Ry?, under the Boost license?" Rik has asked TPF whether they can get us an opinion from counsel
Other Topics
* C99 — what we want is a document Porting or pod that describes the parts of C we permit. This is already present, ostensibly, in perlhack.pod under "Style". We'll also want to write up the process by which we test things for sufficient portability, which is basically "build a test case that can be smoked everywhere."
* smoke-me branches: the state of these remains (as Jim put it) "complicated"; it would be nice to feel we had someone who was championing an overall fix, but it's also not clear that this can be done by somebody not already very familiar with the situation
* we discussed some MRs (most notably changing how some core libraries use Exporter and dropping the :win32 pseudo-layer); those two are now merged
* we talked about the TPF "Shared Vision of Perl" survey and Neil was to send Andrew Solomon some notes
* I said I'd put together a list of "stuff PSC has said it wants to see happen and need to be carried out", which I have done and will post about shortly.
--
rjbs