Re^4: Perl Monks monastery vs the Vatican

Why is changing Perlmonks automatically equivalent of taking away from what it is now? I think the OP argues that it could be all that and additionally a marketing success for the Perl language. The whole site is organized around volunteers. I would think it would not be that hard to find a few. It seems every suggestion of improvement is met with the same checklist of why Perlmonks is good so far. Same with Perl for that matter. Why do we need more than this? Why do we eat Steak instead of Millet?

Image capability? Why not? Maybe that could be the first concrete suggestion. Storage gets cheaper every day. I don't know why at least the practicalities of it can't be investigated. It shouldn't be insulting or surprising to anyone that some members would question the way things are. None of it is meant disrespectfully.

Realistically though, how much benefit could a facelift bring? Would it attract new members? I think it would be cool if the Monastery did something really cool that coincided with a Perl announcement of some sort..

Comment on Re^4: Perl Monks monastery vs the Vatican

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Perl Monks monastery vs the Vatican by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Dec 10, 2014 at 20:45 UTC
Why is it that persons who are not volunteering are always so sure someone else should be? I looked into hacking on the site years ago. The code base for the Everything Engine and the fork that this site runs on is difficult to adapt and unpleasant to look at. There aren’t a lot of hackers with that kind of skill, time, and interest and those who have those things tend to see the site for what it is: a pretty basic though nicely threaded forum which does what it does perfectly well as is. While I would also enjoy a facelift, it would not alter my participation here because it has nothing to do why I come here and I don’t think it’s that bad looking. StackOverflow looks and functions better but I find the unthreaded, no downvote comments, sterile-as-possible-by-policy, freeze this crap, block that content, wiki ethos there a bit toxic. Pretty and snappy as it is, I’m always driven back here when I try to spend time over there. Anyway, I would participate in a rewrite and facelift—not a redesign of the community or voting policies or anything but cosmetic, UX, and performance based changes—of the site if done with modern idioms with best web-practices and an open license. I think it’s a fairly easy six month part time project for 2 or 3 devs; and one good project manager to write a spec, API outline, and some TDD/regression tests and keep things on point (this would probably be tye, Corion, or jdporter, or maybe all of them). Porting the content would be difficult though and require a time commitment from someone who knows the current codebase and its pitfalls well.	[reply]
Re^6: Perl Monks monastery vs the Vatican by trippledubs (Deacon) on Dec 11, 2014 at 01:21 UTC
Never heard of Everything before now. It is interesting the 'Best of the Week' top node is one discussing the urgent need to modernize the look of the web site or risk irrelevancy. Marketing and encouraging the use of Perl is a worthy goal. Monks mentor here all day 24/7 and I think it is great. There have been many calls to improve the site. Would it actually appease anyone or gain new members? I'm not exactly sure. I'm not a professional programmer, usually. But if I do decide to get a full time job using Perl, or strike out on my own using Perl creating value for others, I would like a job to be there, or for any potential client to not cringe if I said the word. In short, The Church of Perl should glorify Perl to the highest power, amen. I also would volunteer time, talent, and/or money to the project to see specific goals being carried out.	[reply]