Who has been appointed by whom?

> I just hope that, eventually, the whingeing will stop

The TPF is an US organization meant to finance US YAPCs and grants and has no legal authority outside the US or on platforms run by independent volunteers.

The demonstrated political dilettantism is simply mind-blowing.

"I just hope that, eventually, the whingeing will stop and those that have been appointed to make decisions will be allowed to simply get on with their job."

The problem I have with this is covered well in one of our previous discussions. If the person/people in charge aren't making the right decisions without taking what implementers/other party's responsible for doing the work are saying there are going to be big problems.

If the person/people in charge aren't making the right decisions without taking what implementers/other party's responsible for doing the work are saying there are going to be big problems

There will always be "implementers/other party's responsible for doing the work" who think that the "person/people in charge aren't making the right decisions".
If we have to wait for all parties to agree, then we'll be waiting for a very long time.

The people in charge aren't there to follow the orders (including the mutually exclusive ones) of everybody else.
They are there to do what they think is right - and at some point they'll have to be given the opportunity to do that.
I'm not saying that we've reached that point just yet, but if we're never going to let them do their job then there's no point in having them there at all.

Earlier today, Nicholas Clark posted a PSC meeting report that contained:

* The intent is that we continue to do timeboxed stable releases annua
+lly
* When we hit “all the 7 features” then it’s 7 - i.e. most of the chan
+ges for 7 may well be released first in 5.x releases.
* 7 won’t be infinitely far away - if it turns out that a feature will
+ take too long, then that’s for 7.x.0, or even 8
* for now the focus is on the obvious low-hanging fruit that can be re
+ady for a 5.36.0
* developing the plan for 7 remains on our list, and some of the 5.36 
+work may result in things deemed "for 7".
[download]

That's a long way from the perl 7 plans that Sawyer announced, all those months ago. Looks like the message is finally getting through - ie that their only job is to keep everybody happy.

Anyway ... I'll try to stay quiet about this, now.
Surely I can find something more worthy of my attention ;-)

Cheers,
Rob

This was the place where a single volunteer said they no longer wanted to maintain rt.cpan.org, no discussion was offered to allow someone else the opportunity to pick this up. Mails from people not in this group were ignored, as was the pleas from members (some responsible for toolchain and other core perl stuff) that this would cause chaos. This was something not widely publicised, coming as a surprise to many, others I suspect just never found out. Not until this gained a wider audience elsewhere (p5p, even though it could be considered 'off topic' for that list) was something done, almost at the last minute, to stop rt.cpan from closing. See also http://blogs.perl.org/users/martin_mcgrath/2021/01/regarding-the-closure-of-rtcpan.html

Ah, so you're talking about the infrastructure list. Well, TPF isn't exactly known for transparency and being in touch with the community. The fact that the list has public archives is already a huge improvement compared to a few years ago, when *everything* was happening behind the closed doors.

Yeah, but p5p is a mailing-list, where discussions are decided by endurance and individuals with commit bits.

The decision process is so efficient that it took less than 20 years to produce "experimental" signatures.