monday morning pick me up
aaron.trevena at gmail.com
Mon Apr 3 17:11:46 BST 2006
I'll answer the original questions before I tackle what Nigel said
(and yes I'm probably in the vocal minority, sorry).
I'm glad the TPF is funding further perl development, it's a very good thing.
I'd like to see it or somebody else make it much easier to volunteer -
either by breaking up jobs that need doing into smaller chunks that
more people can find the time to do or otherwise making it easier to
help thru wiki's, mailing lists, etc.
The blog is a good start on making it easier to see what is going on
and how to help.
I think TPF is a bit US-Centric and could do with having a wider
spread of people internationally, particularly in europe, even if it
means splitting jobs up a bit, having more volunteers from outside the
US would help. Having said that I don't see it as a significant
problem, and it's not purely US based, just a bit US-centric.
Moving onto Nigel's comments..
> This kind of remark is the other reason why Perl has a problem. I'm trying
> to offer my best ideas on how the TPF can be improved - and all you can
> offer is a crude attempt to trivialise my point and a personal insult.
I place more value on the community that you consider a problem, than
the IPR you think TPF could leverage. The former helps me earn a
living, solve problems and find cool new technology and ideas, the
latter helps me.. er.. nothing.
> I'm going to say it again for those members of the list who know that my
> grasp of reality is perfectly fine.
> * The TPF can better commercialise the "Perl" trade mark(s) for the good of the community.
Not sure how they could do that without alienating current partners
before finding new ones.
> * O'Reilly publishers are just one of many potential commercial partnership opportunities.
I'm sure many of the current partners who donate money, services in
kind (from hosting to organising conferences, etc), and other free
stuff would prefer to deal with a charity that asks nicely than a
company that demands money through lawyers.
O Reilly provide stuff like licensing the camel logo, which they
certainly don't have to, as well as sites like onlamp.com and
perl.com. Their commitment to perl through donations, sponsership,
publishing books, conferences, websites etc has great benefits.
> * Java(tm) is a good case study for the revenue potential here.
Java is a loss-leader for Sun -- It's use of Trademarks,
certification, etc is to ensure that the standard isn't polluted. It's
still "embraced and extended" by vendors despite that, and there is
plenty of Java around that is less "write-once, run anywhere" than
perl! I don't see how that's a good case study for Perl. Correct me if
I'm wrong, though.
I'm a lot less interested in "leveraging IPR", which is usually the
last resort of those with more lawyers than thinkers, and more
interested in roping in volunteers and transparency which cost time
rather than money.
More information about the london.pm