Updating http://history.perl.org/PerlTimeline.html

Shlomi,

I skimmed the existing timeline and my first impression was "ugh".  =20
There's a lot a stuff that's unrelated to Perl ("Steven Jobs and =20
Steven Wozniak found Apple Computer") and overly opinionated details =20
("Microsoft infec^H^H^Htroduces Windows to the world.").  But once I =20
read on further I realized that this document is quite valuable as it =20=

has a ton of relevant information and links.  I think it's a great =20
idea to update this document and I applaud your initiative.  It does =20
seem like a hard task, though.

To share the work, what do you think about moving it to the wiki?  Or =20=

at least making the working copy be on the wiki with a "release" HTML =20=

version pulled off periodically (with a link back to the wiki)?

Chris


On Apr 26, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'd like to start the long task of updating
> http://history.perl.org/PerlTimeline.html which has been stopped at =20=

> 2002.
> What I'm planning to do is:
>
> 1. Make the document validate:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=3...ry.perl.org/=20
> PerlTimeline.html
>
> 2. Convert to XHTML 1.1.
>
> 3. Add more links and news items (that would be the hardest part) =20
> in the
> following years. Also prune some dead links.
>
> Note that I have some affiliations. I'll fork the document to a =20
> temporary
> location (with a note). The copyright reads:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
> The Timeline of Perl and its Culture =A91999-2001 Elaine Ashton. =20
> Permission is
> granted for use of this document in whole or in part for non-=20
> commercial
> purposes. For commercial uses, please contact the author first. =20
> Links to this
> document are welcome after e-mailing the author with the document =20
> URL where
> the link will appear. 
>
> I don't know if it can be modified while retaining the same licence =20=

> (I've CCed
> her to ask her just in case.) If the HTML is generated from =20
> something else,
> it would be useful to know that now, but it doesn't seem that this =20
> is the
> case for it. Perhaps Elaine would like to specify a Creative =20
> Commons licence
> for it.
>
> Anyway, if you can think of any events that should be added, please =20=

> email me
> in private.
>
> Best Regards and thanks in advance,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
> Best Introductory Programming Language - http://xrl.us/bjn84
>
> The bad thing about hardware is that it sometimes work and =20
> sometimes doesn't.
> The good thing about software is that it's consistent: it always =20
> does not
> work, and it always does not work in exactly the same way.

On Saturday 26 April 2008, Chris Dolan wrote:
> Shlomi,
>
> I skimmed the existing timeline and my first impression was "ugh".
> There's a lot a stuff that's unrelated to Perl ("Steven Jobs and
> Steven Wozniak found Apple Computer") and overly opinionated details
> ("Microsoft infec^H^H^Htroduces Windows to the world.").  But once I
> read on further I realized that this document is quite valuable as it
> has a ton of relevant information and links.  I think it's a great
> idea to update this document and I applaud your initiative.  It does
> seem like a hard task, though.

Yes.

>
> To share the work, what do you think about moving it to the wiki?  Or
> at least making the working copy be on the wiki with a "release" HTML
> version pulled off periodically (with a link back to the wiki)?

I thought about it too. The question is naturally whether we want to use the
MediaWiki-based http://perl.net.au/ or the Socialtext-based "Official Perl 5
Wiki" ( http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5...cgi?perl_5_wiki ). But we
may need to clear the legalities first, and see if we can put stuff that's
restricted commercially (as is the case for the existing timeline) there. If
Elaine would relicense it under a more permissive licence, that would
certainly help, but I was unable to contact her so far (though I haven't
tried very hard).

Assuming the legalities can be overcome, converting it to a wiki page is
probably a good idea. However, in my history of contributing to wikis and th
e
wikimedia wikis I've ran into several wiki'ing anti-patterns that made
contributing to wikis much less pleasant than I'd like. I can elaborate, but
it may be off-topic here. I suppose most of you are familiar with some of
them.

This is regardless of the "Too many cooks spoil the broth" issue[1] that we
may encounter in a wiki.

In any case, I first want to get the legal status of the document cleared
before we wikify it.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

[1] - one thing I read about it and made me laugh is that "If a million
Shakespeares had to write together, they would write like a monkey.", which
is a variation on what Steven Wright once said (
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/stevenwr.htm ). One must be careful when
applying it, though.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Rethinking CPAN - http://xrl.us/bjn7p

The bad thing about hardware is that it sometimes work and sometimes doesn't
.
The good thing about software is that it's consistent: it always does not
work, and it always does not work in exactly the same way.

On Apr 26, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Saturday 26 April 2008, Chris Dolan wrote: 
>
> I thought about it too. The question is naturally whether we want
> to use the
> MediaWiki-based http://perl.net.au/ or the Socialtext-based
> "Official Perl 5
> Wiki" ( http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?
> perl_5_wiki ). But we
> may need to clear the legalities first, and see if we can put stuff
> that's
> restricted commercially (as is the case for the existing timeline)
> there. If
> Elaine would relicense it under a more permissive licence, that would
> certainly help, but I was unable to contact her so far (though I
> haven't
> tried very hard).
>
> Assuming the legalities can be overcome, converting it to a wiki
> page is
> probably a good idea. However, in my history of contributing to
> wikis and the
> wikimedia wikis I've ran into several wiki'ing anti-patterns that made
> contributing to wikis much less pleasant than I'd like. I can
> elaborate, but
> it may be off-topic here. I suppose most of you are familiar with
> some of
> them.
>
> This is regardless of the "Too many cooks spoil the broth" issue[1]
> that we
> may encounter in a wiki.
>
> In any case, I first want to get the legal status of the document
> cleared
> before we wikify it.

Ahh, I mistakenly truncated my point.  I mentioned the advantage of
sharing the workload, but the main point I meant to make was that in
a wiki it becomes more obvious how to contribute and the
disappearance of an author is not a problem.  Wikis normally have a
contributor license that is amenable to moving forward with the work.

I prefer MediaWiki personally (the state of the art in web-based rich
text editing is lacking, IMO), but the "Official"-ness of the
SocialText-based wiki makes it a better choice.

Yes, I agree that the best first step is to clarify the license.

With respect to "Too many cooks", I agree.  Given the lack of
contributors to the P5 wiki, I doubt that's a real problem
here.  :-)  But, yes, with too many contributors it would be hard to
keep the history at a consistent level of detail.

Chris

Oh, god, someone did a bad thing and forwarded me an email from this
infernal list that I had been blissfully unsubscribed to for...well,
a really long time now. In spite of having given birth and spending
the past 18 months being a mum I have not completely lost my
character so those who are sensitive to my usual missives should
probably brace yourselves.

Firstly, I have waited for a very long time for maintainers to step
up for a number of things, including the history project. Perhaps I
should write a manual with RULE NUMBER ONE: DON'T INSULT THE PROJECT
YOU ARE WANTING TO ASSUME CONTROL OF AND CLAIM YOU TRIED TO GET IN
TOUCH WITH ONE OF THE MOST EASILY FOUND PEOPLE ON THE NET BUT SOMEHOW
MANAGED TO FAIL. What, do I have to expain this to you idiots? Do you
XXXXX about a meal from your mother and offer to recook it, too? Not
to mention, my email address is everywhere (and plenty of other
people manage to find me daily) and while I probably should have your
address on a kill filter, I don't as I have better things to do these
days.

"In any case, I first want to get the legal status of the document
cleared
before we wikify it."

NO.

I'd welcome an update to the HTML if it has fallen out of valid HTML.
I'd welcome updated links for dead ones and I'd welcome a new version
with events up to the current time. I would not be interested
currently in opening it up to a wiki to a throng of people who either
have an agenda or no idea just how much time it takes/took to prepare
a document like this.

Send me something I can look at and update the site with, otherwise
I'm simply not interested.

As ever, don't talk about a patch, send me a patch and we'll see.

Grumpily,

e.

On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Elaine Ashton wrote:

> "In any case, I first want to get the legal status of the document
> cleared
> before we wikify it."
>
> NO.


Sounds like it's time to start a new history wiki page and go forward
from there.

xoxo,
Andy

--
Andy Lester => andy@petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

On 26 Apr, 2008, at 22:20, Andy Lester wrote:
 
>
>
> Not sure why you're pissed at me, other than reflex.

I'm stating the obvious and my opinion. Both of you are terrific at
stirring the shit and then letting it fall to the winds. I'd have a
lot more interest if either of you had anything but ideas because
someone who wasn't talking out their ass would have not only a lot
more interesting comments but would have both a lot more respect for
the document and a lot more reluctance towards the amount of work it
will require.

I'll even tell a story about such a thing. A long time ago, in a perl
land far, far away, there was a vague cloud of stuff known as CPAN
long before such things as search engines and it had an absolutely
terrible "FAQ". I asked the grumpy bastard who would one day become
my husband if I could update it and he told me to piss off. It made
me mad and I sent the grumpy bastard a real HTML FAQ with expanded
content that included such information as to how that dark pit
actually worked. I think my reward for the effort was being asked to
answer all the dumbass questions in email while he went on an 8 w
holiday. Point being is that unless you have some real work to show
or are so easily rebuffed then you really aren't worth the bother.

> I just figure it would be easier all around to move forward with a
> new document, or set of documents, rather than battle over the
> existing one.

There is no battle. The document is mine. I spent most of a year
building it and, as I said, while I've been waiting for someone to
come and have some enthusiasm for it, you and Shlomi are not the kind
of folks I was hoping for as I want someone who will do something
instead of throwing onto some damn wiki and hoping someone else will
do the work for you.

e.

On Apr 26, 2008, at 10:00 PM, Elaine Ashton wrote:

> throwing onto some damn wiki and hoping someone else will do the
> work for you.


Not to speak for Shlomi, but I suspect his purpose of putting
something on a wiki isn't to get other people to do the work for him,
but to allow others to work on it.  Makes it much easier to let things
be maintained rather than having something lie fallow for six years.

--
Andy Lester => andy@petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Elaine,

If some of your anger was inspired by my comments, I apologize.  I
had no intention to insult you or your work.

My suggestion of a wiki was not to make light of the amount of work
of the existing timeline, but instead to recognize that amount of
work by suggesting that no one person could realistically maintain
that history moving forward.  The gap from Jan 2002 to present
implied to me that you had burned out on the history and had no
interest in maintaining it -- my bad.  I was unaware that you had
been sing maintainers "for a very long time".

I also apologize for my stream-of-consciousness comments that started
with "ugh" and ended with me acknowledging the value of the
timeline.  The "ugh" came from reading 1969-1986, which seemed to
have minimal relevance to Perl.  I should have written that more
tactfully, making my respect more clear.

Chris

On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Elaine Ashton wrote:
> Oh, god, someone did a bad thing and forwarded me an email from
> this infernal list that I had been blissfully unsubscribed to
> for...well, a really long time now. In spite of having given birth
> and spending the past 18 months being a mum I have not completely
> lost my character so those who are sensitive to my usual missives
> should probably brace yourselves.
>
> Firstly, I have waited for a very long time for maintainers to step
> up for a number of things, including the history project. Perhaps I
> should write a manual with RULE NUMBER ONE: DON'T INSULT THE
> PROJECT YOU ARE WANTING TO ASSUME CONTROL OF AND CLAIM YOU TRIED TO
> GET IN TOUCH WITH ONE OF THE MOST EASILY FOUND PEOPLE ON THE NET
> BUT SOMEHOW MANAGED TO FAIL. What, do I have to expain this to you
> idiots? Do you XXXXX about a meal from your mother and offer to
> recook it, too? Not to mention, my email address is everywhere (and
> plenty of other people manage to find me daily) and while I
> probably should have your address on a kill filter, I don't as I
> have better things to do these days.
>
> "In any case, I first want to get the legal status of the document
> cleared
> before we wikify it."
>
> NO.
>
> I'd welcome an update to the HTML if it has fallen out of valid
> HTML. I'd welcome updated links for dead ones and I'd welcome a new
> version with events up to the current time. I would not be
> interested currently in opening it up to a wiki to a throng of
> people who either have an agenda or no idea just how much time it
> takes/took to prepare a document like this.
>
> Send me something I can look at and update the site with, otherwise
> I'm simply not interested.
>
> As ever, don't talk about a patch, send me a patch and we'll see.
>
> Grumpily,
>
> e.