Names, Names, Names, and Distractions

Dear Matz,

With all the discussion of (the mere?) naming of certain method
invocations lately I began to wonder about how your time is best spent.
I wonder if you would care to comment on the tradeoff between your time
in discussing changes and implementing those changes, given a greater or
lesser extent of influence of those with whom discussions are being had.
In other words would we generally be better off buzzing off and letting
you work?

As much as you are a fan of Perl, or Larry at least, we may have
observed a certain stagnancy with Perl, and this may have a relation to
there being more people being allowed (and wanting to have) input; and
the O'Reilly book is known as the Camel book, perhaps for a reason?
(Hint: horses and committees. Also, does anyone know as to whether the
use of this etching was deliberate? BTW, this joke is most unfair on
camels too I might add; as there is no such thing as poor design: only
better and worse fitness for purpose, which is a human concept and
anthropocentrically biased anyways. Please note that I am no great fan
of camels as they can be cantankerous and spit.)

I realise that a response from you to this question which if it is
essentially that the direction of the language is going to change to the
extent of nil to very little as a consequence of everyone's efforts
might piss some people off; although I assume that this isn't likely to
be the response, since the level of interaction 'should' be indicative
of your interest in receiving them. Yet I would still be interested in
a comment from you and for such to potentially influence the process,
even if it is little more than encouraging (some of) us (me?) to buzz
off voluntarily.

I also realise that such comment or discussion may already have been
had, in which case I'll take silence to mean that this is sufficiently
commonly known---such that this is not at issue and lest I waste any
more of your time... (I'm aware of your comments surrounding
completeness of suggestions, but that's all.) I'm mostly curious, a tad
deferential, and a little concerned that 'we' might be delaying 2.0!



P.S. Note that as I have sufficiently little say on the subject of
language design I have the self-imposed discipline to shut up!