This is an important subject that came up on core. Please have a look and
let’s talk about what we can do to improve things.
See: ruby-core:1847
Some response (from 1857):
Lets not mistake suggestive ideas for proposals. They are not
proposals. People make suggestions as a way to LEARN. Which is why many of
them are from newbies. This is often a misunderstood form of self-education,
very much like a scientific process (ref. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~gaud/
bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm) People observe their own Ruby-related
problems and make suggestive hypothesis toward solutions, often times
directed right at Ruby itself. They present these in the mailing lists to
"put them to experiment". In doing so they learn. They learn how thier idea
may be is misconcieved, or how there are good alternatives to it, or how the
idea might be improved upon, and so on. And we all learn from this, not just
the submitter of the idea… Then sometimes, a good idea is actually hit upon.
Thank goodnes they posted that suggestion! And the community response gives
the suggester sound footing to actually make a real proposal. All of this
is a way to learn and explore Ruby. To feel apart of a vibrant language that
actually encouges its users to ask the questions, to make the sugestions, to
feel just a little bit “like matz”. So please, do not mistake these things
for sins against the Ruby Way. For they are not impinging demands to change
Ruby. They are but the “protoplast” for what may become so when they are made
"real" as an RCR on the Ruby Garden. Then and only then.
And so I am led to make a suggestion now: That we, as a community, might
think about how to better this whole process. I for instance, was thinking of
a wiki-ish web knowledgebase of well catagorized suggestions, good search
functionality, perhaps automatic poles for “late stage” ideas (those being
prepared for RCR), etc. Something that really moves ideas through a process
from early suggestion and exploration through a perculation, upward into final
RCR. [ed model after Scientific Process] And with this, likewise, a much more
exacting RCR process itself. (I believe David is working on the latter
presently). The rationale behind this is of course to organize the seemingly
chaotic way in which it is approached now, thus lowering repetition of
same-old-same-old as all we have now is a poor mail-archive search; and at
the same time improve the quality of the really good ideas that make it to
the top. This would help matz, I think, quite a lot. (But mind you, even if
we gain #2, please do not forget #1!)
…
Obviously the current route is becoming a burden for our beloved matz.
And so I am led to make a suggestion now: That we, as a community, might
think about how to better this whole process. I for instance, was thinking of
a wiki-ish web knowledgebase of well catagorized suggestions, good search
functionality, perhaps automatic poles for “late stage” ideas (those being
prepared for RCR), etc. Something that really moves ideas through a process
from early suggestion and exploration through a perculation, upward into final
RCR. [ed model after Scientific Process] And with this, likewise, a much more
exacting RCR process itself. (I believe David is working on the latter
^^^^^
Just to disambiguate, since we have several Davids in our community:
that would be me
presently). The rationale behind this is of course to organize the seemingly
chaotic way in which it is approached now, thus lowering repetition of
same-old-same-old as all we have now is a poor mail-archive search; and at
the same time improve the quality of the really good ideas that make it to
the top. This would help matz, I think, quite a lot. (But mind you, even if
we gain #2, please do not forget #1!)
…
Obviously the current route is becoming a burden for our beloved matz.
The new RCR process (still under construction) comes directly from a
request from Matz, and is being developed with feedback from him, so
hopefully it will address his concerns. For the other things you
mention, I’d be happy to see much or most of the discourse about
changing Ruby moved to a wiki somewhere, as you suggest. (There’s
vastly too much of it on the mailing lists for my personal taste.)
The goal of the RCR site, however, is to be self-contained,
RCR-dedicated, and reasonably rigorous, so I don’t think it’s
practicable or desirable to mandate that people also go through a
pre-RCR process unless they want to.
Certainly no one should be forced to use such a process. But to have such a
process available, well, if it were, then wouldn’t that be of greater
benefit? Wouldn’t RCR’s be better, and less of them for matz to deal with?
Without it, I fear we will have more of the same, just with more fields to
fill out.
You make some excellent points and I think it helps refine the notion of a
forum for this domain of inqury and devleopment. I believe we can approach it
in stages. You’re working on the end result, the RCR. So lets add to this the
very front most end, which is really nothing more than a new mailing
(ruby-muse, or whatever). With those in place we can then build a wiki like
bridge, that is in part a web based interface to the mailing list archive,
but administrable so posts/threads can catagorized; and also in part a
“sandbox” for RCR building, with peer comment and poling features. In this
last respect it should also have some relationship to what you are currently
working on so that when such an RCR is felt complete, one can click
[Officially Submit]. Does that sound like a fair plan?
T.
···
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 03:38 pm, David A. Black wrote:
The new RCR process (still under construction) comes directly from a
request from Matz, and is being developed with feedback from him, so
hopefully it will address his concerns. For the other things you
mention, I’d be happy to see much or most of the discourse about
changing Ruby moved to a wiki somewhere, as you suggest. (There’s
vastly too much of it on the mailing lists for my personal taste.)
The goal of the RCR site, however, is to be self-contained,
RCR-dedicated, and reasonably rigorous, so I don’t think it’s
practicable or desirable to mandate that people also go through a
pre-RCR process unless they want to.
You make some excellent points and I think it helps refine the notion of a
forum for this domain of inqury and devleopment. I believe we can approach it
in stages. You’re working on the end result, the RCR. So lets add to this the
very front most end, which is really nothing more than a new mailing
(ruby-muse, or whatever). With those in place we can then build a wiki like
bridge, that is in part a web based interface to the mailing list archive,
but administrable so posts/threads can catagorized; and also in part a
“sandbox” for RCR building, with peer comment and poling features. In this
last respect it should also have some relationship to what you are currently
working on so that when such an RCR is felt complete, one can click
[Officially Submit]. Does that sound like a fair plan?
I don’t want to add such a front-end to what I’m developing, unless
Matz decides it’s essential, but there’s no reason for you not to try
to spearhead a pre-RCR discussion wiki if you want to.
The front end would be a complete seperation of concern, with merely a
interface “adapater” to hook over to your work. But it seems you’re just not
interested in any such thing. Okay, then. This isn’t directed squarely at
you, but I think you have really put the last capper on it for me. I will
indeed take matters into my own hands and to a far greater degree.
Sometimes I think matz would be better off if he just closed the source, and
his ears, and told everyone to use it or loose it.
-T
···
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 04:54 pm, David A. Black wrote:
Hi –
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
You make some excellent points and I think it helps refine the notion of
a forum for this domain of inqury and devleopment. I believe we can
approach it in stages. You’re working on the end result, the RCR. So lets
add to this the very front most end, which is really nothing more than a
new mailing (ruby-muse, or whatever). With those in place we can then
build a wiki like bridge, that is in part a web based interface to the
mailing list archive, but administrable so posts/threads can catagorized;
and also in part a “sandbox” for RCR building, with peer comment and
poling features. In this last respect it should also have some
relationship to what you are currently working on so that when such an
RCR is felt complete, one can click [Officially Submit]. Does that sound
like a fair plan?
I don’t want to add such a front-end to what I’m developing, unless
Matz decides it’s essential, but there’s no reason for you not to try
to spearhead a pre-RCR discussion wiki if you want to.
on 03/12/03, "T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com> writes:
Sometimes I think matz would be better off if he just closed the
source, and his ears, and told everyone to use it or loose it.
I understand your feeling. But unfortunately it’s not gonna happen.
Sorry.
Ah! Rejected again!
That’s the spirit! I am planning on making a couple of
Rite - RCR’s (before beginning of march:-) and I am
suspecting that none of them well be accepted:-)
