1

1.txt

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:38:17 +0100, Sawyer X wrote:
>> On 1/25/21 2:45 AM, Karen E wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:10 PM Darren D
>>> <mailto:darren>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Where projects are actively maintained, the authors would quickly
>>>     setup
>>>     alternate bug tracking mechanisms where they haven't already, and for
>>>     non-maintained projects, new reports wouldn't be responded to
>>>     anyway, but the
>>>     read-only archive would ensure any past reports aren't lost.
>>>
>>>
>>> [...] To hear statements that the statistics simply aren't compelling
>>> enough is to deny my lived experience, and strikes me as incredibly
>>> lacking in empathy.
>>
>>
>> Considering I pushed back on the statistics, I imagine this might be a
>> response to me. Just in case it is, I want to affirm that I am not
>> doubting the toll it takes on you or other contributors. My initial
>> response to Paul was careful and left a lot of room for me to understand
>> better. This is also why I'm following every message on this thread and
>> raising it in PSC.
>>
>>
>> My comment on statistics referred directly to the cost/benefit analysis
>> of RT as a system for the purposes of funding its continued maintenance.
>> I did not intend to suggest that the burden on you or other maintenance
>> authors is minimal or non-existent.
>
> Dude, with all respect and love, you said earlier:
>
>> This assumes on a major benefit to this expenditure. I personally doubt the benefit outweighs the cost.

2.txt

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:56:49 +0100, Sawyer X  wrote:

> I think you are not entirely aware of how you come across in your
> phrasing of things.
>
> Every single year, an email goes out asking for releasers. Every year.
> This is not a new occurrence. Sharing how many I have is meaningless
> because the numbers move around a lot. When I send the email, I also
> reach out to direct people. People respond and I start conversations
> on when would be a good time for each. This can resolve by filling the
> roster or it can end with a few holes.
>
> It might be more reassuring to you if I say there are two or five
> people registered, but it doesn't serve my purpose, which is to make
> sure I find the right person for each month's release.
>
> I think you focus a lot on how things seem to you, but that clouds any
> understanding of my work. I cannot do my job solely on how it seems to
> you.
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 2:34 PM 
>  wrote:
>>
>> i ascribe no intent to the word, things lost in translation from german
>>
>> also i don't care who does the release
>>
>> the original email asking for volunteers had no indicator for how many you had available, and with the overall situation that led to some low level anxiety about perl's situation. with this news apparently that anxiety was unwarranted and not needed in the first place. would've been good to know from the start and during the process how many volunteers you had/needed in order to know better how to feel about perl's health.
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:28:02 +0100, Sawyer X  wrote:
>>
>> > Can you explain to me why you're using the word "hidden" here? What do
>> > you think should be the process for me to decide who does a release?
>> >
>> > I have a major problem with how you freely use the word "hidden" when
>> > something doesn't seem to be fully shared with you.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 2:25 PM 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> addendum:
>> >>
>> >> i find it a little annoying that this process is entirely hidden as there was no feeling before as to how many volunteers there were and how many there are now and the thread asking for it had only 2 responses
>> >>
>> >> uncertainty is the mind killer
>> >>
>> >> no response needed, just wanted to say this
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:18:57 +0100,   wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Yeah, that's fine. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 12:59:14 +0100, Sawyer X  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hey,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I want to thank you for stepping up but eventually it won't be
>> >> >> necessary since we've had enough usual releasers step up that I would
>> >> >> rather save your effort for another time. I tend to limit how many new
>> >> >> releases we have to reduce the onboarding efforts. We're stretched
>> >> >> thin recently with so many fatigued and worn out over... well, you
>> >> >> know. :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have you written down as a possible releaser in the future. Would it
>> >> >> be okay if I reach out to you when it's relevant again?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:55 PM 
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Gotcha, makes sense to prioritize April then. :)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In general, happy to follow your lead on this.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:52:40 +0200, Sawyer X  wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > March would likely require more work than April, which is what I'm
>> >> >>> > prioritizing for first releasers. I'll keep both in mind for you,
>> >> >>> > though.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:01 PM 
>> >> >>> >  wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Gotcha. March would fit better as my April tends to be a bit busier, but if nobody else takes that i can do too. :)
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:08:25 +0200, Sawyer X  wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> > I meant, which month would you like to do a release in?
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > At the moment, the following months are available: November, October,
>> >> >>> >> > January, March, April. I think it's best to take something much
>> >> >>> >> > further out, where the branch stabilizes and there are less stress and
>> >> >>> >> > volatility. How about April?
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:14 PM 
>> >> >>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> Not sure if this is a "for the coming years, which month do you want" or a "of the next few months, which one", and i don't know how the general scheduling works.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> But in general i'm happy with whenever, whether soon or less soon. :)
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:26:41 +0200, Sawyer X  wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> Thank you for stepping up. Is there a particular month you would find more comfortable?
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:47 AM   wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:54:16 +0200, Sawyer X  wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> >>> > For the foreseeable future, we intend to continue releasing development
>> >> >>> >> >>> > versions of Perl 5.33. I am looking for volunteers to help with them.
>> >> >>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> >>> > You will get one free online hug and a redeemable coupon for orange
>> >> >>> >> >>> > juice at the next in-person conference. What do you say? :)
>> >> >>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >> >>> I'm up for it.

3.txt

sawyer posted this email ~40 minutes ago
in it he alleges "abusive behavior", "harassment", "publicly shaming",
"bullying"

from the text i know he means , and likely also me, and possibly others,
particularly as he deleted his twitter account within a few minutes after
message ⚫ #24 below

i'm sorry that i wasn't able to word myself in a way that did not feel to him
like i'm going after him
at the same time, i do not believe i deserve the accusations

as such, the record of this last conversation, as accurate as i can represent
it. on rereading, several people made typos and used words they didn't mean.
i preserve the text as original and encourage keeping this in mind

the ⚫ #number of messages here is chronological

links to the various thread chains:

all other tweets are as of yet undeleted and i believe they will stay up.
screenshots of sawyer's tweets below

⚫ #0 
It looks like we're going forwards with 'use v7', which means future releases
will still be able to be /usr/bin/perl This was the right decision. Many thanks
to @PerlSawyer @neilb @rjbs for listening to people and taking time to think
things through.
https://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2021/04/msg259789.html

	⚫ #1 cestith
	So no choosing which Perl runs for /usr/bin/perl7 and which Perl /usr/bin/perl
	or and which is /usr/bin/perl like with some other languages? Will I be able to
	use 7's features without 'use v7' if I do name the executable 'perl7'? Does
	using 'use v7'm mean keeping all the cruft?

		⚫ #2 
		> use 7's features without 'use v7' if I do name the executable 'perl7'?
		maybe
		be aware that IDEs, PPI, Perl::Critic, syntax highlighters and other tools will
		treat whatever code you write as perl 5 without `use x;`
		> keeping all the cruft?
		depends on what you mean by cruft

			⚫ #3 
			The people actually doing work on perl core don't seem to find the 'cruft'
			problematic and if they do we can rip out stuff after a deprecation period like
			normal, so unless/until somebody who knows the core code objects I consider that
			an imaginary problem.

				⚫ #4 
				THINK OF THE MAINTENANCE COST is hilarious when the maintainers themselves don't
				mind it.

					⚫ #5 
					to make this somewhat more of a quip, several core devs have said that the value
					of removing perl internals is dubious:
					https://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2021/04/msg259724.html

					⚫ #6 sawyer
					This is not true. The Perl maintainers often have to deal with cruft. We don't
					like it. There's a lot we wish we could remove and it would make our jobs much
					easier.

						⚫ #14 grinnz
						This is not true, as the Perl maintainers have stated.
						https://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2020/06/msg257566.html 
						https://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2020/08/msg258191.html 
						https://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2021/04/msg259724.html

							⚫ #15 
							thanks for putting the whole list together

							⚫ #16 sawyer
							Emails are nice to have. We've had numerous discussions in person at
							Perl Summits that said otherwise.

						⚫ #7 
						If you can find heavy C-level contributors like LeoNerd or DaveM or etc. saying
						that I'd be interested to see.
						Talking to the people who actually hack on that part of the code a lot tends to
						result in more comments like this one than anything else:
						https://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2021/04/msg259724.html

							⚫ #8 
							yeah, i tried to point this out below as well
							and i think it should be mentioned that the email linked is from nicholas clark,
							so there's 3 core maintainers who hold that the important of cruft in perl code
							is in doubt
							<link to ⚫ #5>

							⚫ #9 sawyer
							I have no interest in discussing anything with you, Matt.

								⚫ #11 
								please read the email tho, i don't give a damn if you listen to matt or me or
								anyone else
								but least
								listen to NWCLARK, PEVANS and Dave Mitchell

									⚫ #13 sawyer
									I have no interest in engaging with Matt at all on anything, and I'm not trying
									to convince you of anything. You can consider me wrong if you wish. I'm fine
									with that.

										⚫ #17 
										wrong or not is my concern, i'm just trying to nudge you and the core devs
										towards synchronicity between their most recent statements and yours

											⚫ #18 sawyer
											You will not get it. We flip flop. We say one thing, then consider the opposite
											in other contexts. Numerous in-person meetings have reviewed things we would
											love to review, things that are in our way. We know this. We talk about it.
											Emails in context might reflect elsewhere.

												⚫ #19 sawyer
												And pushing me for saying a single thing is not going to make everything
												suddenly synchronous. So please, just accept that people don't always say
												everything 100% consistently and let me put a single word into the world without
												criticizing it.

													⚫ #22 
													please note that i only asked you to read the email, not to say a specific thing
													if you read those words and hold by your opinion in opposition, that is fine to
													me. i would in fact be curious why because it means i can learn

														⚫ #23 
														also i would hope my last p5p email (plus many others) was a good example of not
														criticizing every word you say

								⚫ #10 
								Then we'll leave it at you having made an unfounded assertion about the
								maintainers' opinions and me having provided actual evidence, and I'll keep
								discussing things with the people writing the code to ensure I have an accurate
								understanding myself.

									⚫ #12 sawyer
									I'm not having any form of conversation with you, Matt.

										⚫ #20 
										That's your prerogative, but in that case I'm confused why you jumped into a
										thread I started explicitly to contradict me - if you don't want to engage with
										me, then joining the thread specifically to engage with what I said is a little
										strange to me.

											⚫ #21 sawyer
											Matt, you need to leave me alone. Take "I don't want to talk to you" as an answer.

												⚫ #24 
												FYI you can untag people you don't want to interact with, instead of replying to
												them and then complaining when they reply back.

4.txt

--
<sawyer> I think there are a few underlying issues.
<sawyer> 1. People in toolchain are assuming *they* make the call on what happens. It's hard to be as blunt as this, but - while they advise, they don't make the call.
<sawyer> 2. People in toolchain are requiring us to only communicate in the mechanisms that work for *them* but fail for *us*.
<sawyer> 3. People in toolchain demand that everything is done publicly - this is clause #2. It works for *them*, not for *us*. I can't manage monster threads with every person who wants to respond. It's too much. We've learned the list is not working many years ago when we had face-to-face summits.
<sawyer> 4. People in toolchain will only support a change that effectively means "zero change." That's not going to pass. Sorry.
<sawyer> So, if 1. We can only talk on IRC or on massive public threads, and 2. We can only move things forward if toolchain approves, and 3. The only thing they approve is a zero change - then we have a standstill.
<sawyer> I'm not referring to you here, but I am to ether and leont.
<sawyer> As soon as I announced that we're changing things, we couldn't have any conversations on how to handle things because the only conversations [some] people from toolchain wanted to have is "you can't do this."
<sawyer> ether's comments were mostly to the line of "you do not have the authority of making this decision. All of us make it and *I* am against it."
<sawyer> I'm entirely fucking done with this little children behavior. Ether doesn't make a decision on core.
--