use Perl

2008Q2 TPF Grant Proposals

Journal written by ambs (3914) and posted by brian_d_foy on 2008.05.02 1:12   

On The Perl Foundation weblog are a set of posts with proposals received by the Grants Committee during the second call for grant proposals for 2008. Although not usual, the rules of the TPF Grants Committee are changing and we hope to make this a rule. Proposals are accepted during one month and after that period, they are posted for public discussion. This is important to make the Grants Committee more aware of the community interest on the project, and to help opening the grants attribution process.

During the month of April we received the following grant proposals:

• Perl 6 Tables
• Solidifying and Extending the Blog Normalize project
• Add Perl support to NetBeans
• Perl on a Stick
• SMOP - Simple Meta Object Programming
• Fixing Bugs in the Archive::Zip Perl Module
• CatalystX::Installer Application
• Perl Survey
  
• Revision Control for all CPAN
• Improve POE::Component::IRC
• DBEditor
• Extending BSDPAN

Please take some time on reading the proposals carefully and give some feedback on the relevance of the proposals.

• Perl (Score:1)

  by jplindstrom (594)

  Most of these sound interesting, but I especially like the ones which interface Perl with the rest of the world: the blog thing, the NetBeans IDE, DBEditor, and BSDPAN.
  
  And Version Control in CPAN is of course a great idea, so long as it's designed so other vcs (git) can be added along side svn.
  • FYI, grant committee (Score:1)

    by btilly (5037)

    Members of the grant committee may or may not read use.perl.org. But we'll all read the official blog before we vote. So if you wish to influence voting for proposals, it is better to comment there than here. :-)
• interesting proposal evaluations (Score:1)

  by mr_bean (3802)

  It's really more interesting reading the evaluations of the proposals than the proposals themselves.
  
  I'm wondering why this is. Perhaps it is the role of controversy. Without disagreement or competition, it's uninteresting.
  
  Perhaps it's the effect of money or scarce resources. Without a horse in the race, or without a goal, it's not worth getting excited.
  
  Anyway, making the evaluation process public was a good idea, I think. The judges should retire to their private space and make their decision an