Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Is it just me, or does this sound like a professional swindle?

    "We're almost done with a project that needs just a small cash infusion and mankind everywhere will reap the benefits. We have little (or nothing) to show for 5 years of work but if you trust us -- and send us cash -- we'll come up with something quickly. Please make your checks payable in Nigerian funds..."

    Autrijus seems to have cobbled together much of Perl 6 in a couple of weeks. Shouldn't we rather send money to an inspired hacker like t
    • Autrijus seems to have cobbled together much of Perl 6 in a couple of weeks

      From nothing? No. From these [perl.org] and these [perl.org] which is part of what has been produced over the past few years. So your We have little (or nothing) to show for 5 years of work is untrue.

      There's no indication of how much they're trying to raise

      I see 12 amounts of $35000. That's a pretty good indication, surely?

      What if they don't hit their target of $35k for each module?

      They're milestones. You can't start the later ones until you finish

      • In spite of the harsh words, Mr. No Free Lunch might not be so 'confused' if anyone from behind the magic curtain ever communicated in a clear, concise way what is going on. There hasn't been an Apoc in over a year so, even for those keeping score, it does give you pause as to why there is suddenly all this excitement, especially after seeing what a bright guy can do in 2 weeks.

        Last time there was a push for funds it was two years back then, too. When there is nothing but the 'with us or against us' kind

        • There hasn't been an Apoc in over a year so...

          Larry is doing Synopses [perl.org] now instead, to speed up the process.

          ...especially after seeing what a bright guy can do in 2 weeks.

          Autrijus' accomplishment [cpan.org] is awesome, but it's not a production system (i.e. something we'd feel comfortable shipping as a replacement for Perl 5). Turning it into a production system would take as much time and effort as finishing off Parrot/PGE/Perl 6.

          You mention funding 4 people in the proposal, but name only three. Who

          • Allison, thanks for the honest answers, with just the facts. Personally, I'd like to thank you and everyone involved for their hard work. You're doing thankless tasks. So thank you.
            The watchword for technology is "change". It's not something to fear.
            I think people are afraid that they're not going to get any change. People's confidence has been eroded. They're afraid that they're going to give money and not get anything tangible back. I don't think that's necessarily fair, but it's the general feeling - people just aren't confident of Perl 6's completion.

            Given this fact, one of the things that worries me about this proposal is the lack of definitions of timelines and accountability. It just doesn't say what these developers will be doing apart from working towards completing the milestones. It doesn't say who will be managing these people and who, as employees, they will have to answer to. I guess the big question these people are asking is exactly what are they going to get for their money - although the proposal implies completed milestones, it doesn't ever actually say it.

            It's not that *I* don't trust the developers to work themselves into the grave if need be to achieve the goals - I do. I have great respect for the work that these people have done, and I have every confidence in them. It's that without this information I fear that it's going to be very hard this time round to convince people to stump up cash.

            So, I was wondering if TPF had considered paying the money for a milestone on completion of the milestones? This transfers the risk from those that are donating to those that are getting paid.

            I'm sure I'm missing some important facts here - like people not being able to eat for six months. Whatever your reasons why this idea is unworkable (and not for a moment do I think that TPF doesn't have them) I think it would do good for us all to hear them.

            Thanks again.

            Mark.

            • I'm sure I'm missing some important facts here - like people not being able to eat for six months.

              I don't think you're missing anything. It isn't the responsibility of the TPF or any foundation to ensure the livelihood of grant recipients. This isn't charity. There's no text box on the grant application asking for details on how badly you need the money.

              I agree that the lack of accountability is astounding. Documentation on deliverables, quality measures, progress reports, lessons learned, noted fail

              • I agree. The Conway Channel [perl.org] was nice in that regard. For community-funded projects that produce open source code, regular progress reports seem very reasonable.

              • As one of the grant managers to whom you refer, I would say "yes, I have that information." However, I am not aware that we've clearly discussed how to best disseminate that. And yes, there's a mailing list you're not on and it's a closed list. Of course, it has to be. When "Luminary X" wants to say "what a mind-bogglingly stupid proposal" (and some of them are), that conversation needs to be private so the committe members know they can speak freely and later tell the proposal author that their proposa

            • So, I was wondering if TPF had considered paying the money for a milestone on completion of the milestones? This transfers the risk from those that are donating to those that are getting paid.

              It is indeed the plan to pay for completed work rather than paying for the entire milestone up front. The commitment is to complete the work for this amount of funding even if it takes longer than planned. Which means, the longer it takes, the lower the "rate of pay" for the developers.

            • People's confidence has been eroded. They're afraid that they're going to give money and not get anything tangible back.

              Bingo. Why are people surprised that the latest call for donations has been met with some cynicism?

              Once bitten, twice shy (and all that).