Re^5: Status of Recent User Information Leak

We have some prominent members such as Dominus, Damian Conway, Randall Schwartz, Larry Wall, et. al. who may not wish to reveal who they are when posting that kind of message (basically calling the people who run PM out). Maybe they would like the post stand on the the merits and not their name. Or maybe they don't want to ruffle too many feathers. It's hard to say, but calling the OP out for posting anonymously could be way off the mark.

The rest of your post just supports

"The PerlMonks code is so bad, even competent programmers can't fix it quickly."

and thus by implication,

"We've really poorly represented the Perl community, and we're sorry."

As to the rest, would a new post be useful? If the gods don't really care there is not a lot anyone else can do. Unfortunately, contacting The Perl Foundation directly about this incident may be more useful at this point. And along those lines, it is becoming clearer that the long term goal should probably be to migrate PM to a supportable framework/platform.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Comment on Re^5: Status of Recent User Information Leak

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Status of Recent User Information Leak by merlyn (Sage) on Oct 06, 2009 at 00:53 UTC
For the record, I have not in the past, nor do I intend in the future, to post anonymously on this issue. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.	[reply]
Re^7: Status of Recent User Information Leak by Argel (Prior) on Oct 06, 2009 at 19:47 UTC
To be clear on my part, I chose people I did *not* think wrote that post, but did help make my point that there are legitimate reasons for posting anonymously. My apologies for any misunderstandings. Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks	[reply]
Re^8: Status of Recent User Information Leak by ELISHEVA (Prior) on Oct 07, 2009 at 07:10 UTC
The people you listed are known for their ability to be effective. Anonymous venting and "calling out" is rarely, if ever, effective at causing change, so I would surmise that the author of that post is not among that group. Besides some are gods themselves and all have personal relationships with senior people at the Perl Foundation, so they have much better avenues to get their point across. I called for the person to step out from anonymity because I want them to be effective. Of course there are legitimate reasons for posting anonymously. But if this person really wants to make a difference, then he/she needs to step out and speak in his/her own voice. Best, beth	[reply]