Someone posts a bug report. Three people reply to say that it's not a bug, it's a feature. Some cite manpages. Some suggest that the manpages should be rewritten to state the unexpected behaviour more clearly. Others reply saying that the manpages are already long enough. Two patches are offered. One doesn't make sense, the other uses technical terms incorrectly. Each is criticized at length. Some say that the manpages need to be rewritten. A rebuttal is offered, that a better search tool is all that is needed. Some suggest patching perldoc. The deficiencies in perldoc are noted. Tom says that the tool he's writing will fix all that. It peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. Someone posts a URL to a slashdot followup that toasts Perl. Some reply saying "it's flamebait, don't respond!" Others say, "but they have good points." More demand to hear those points. When the good points are listed, they are vehemently denied to be good, and in fact are observed to be actively bad. Others refuse to acknowledge the refutation. It peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. Someone posts a feature request. Four people reply saying that the feature is already in Perl. Two more follow up that the feature requested is subtly different from the features already in Perl. Some reply with workarounds. "But we want it in the language!" is said. "It would break backwards compatibility!" others cry. "But nobody would do that anyway!" the petitioners say. "I've been doing it since Perl 2," says Tom, "and by the way, here's a patch to document it." "But we can't live without it!" cry the petitioners. "Tough." says Tom. It peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. Ilya posts a patch to the regular expression engine. Sarathy replies saying that it doesn't have enough comments to document it. Ilya replies with "it's code, it's self-documenting" and a smiley. Tom points out that there're no pod patches to document the new features. Ilya replies that they're experimental and will be documented if accepted. Tom says "how are we supposed to test them, if they're not documented?" Ilya replies with, "it's code, it's self-documenting" and a smiley. Tom curses all things Cossack in words of seven syllables or more. Ilya replies, "if you choose to ignore the truth, I can't help that" and quotes an obscure Russian proverb about a peasant and his donkey in winter. Tom inserts a mail filter to block mail from Ilya, briefly causing all mail to tchrist@perl.com to bounce. Discussion peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. Nick posts a bug in Perl triggered by Perl/Tk. He has narrowed it down to a 4000 line module involving twelve classes, reblessing, a mutable inheritance tree, and XS. Sarathy says, "I just posted a patch to fix that." Discussion peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. Someone asks why their bug reports aren't making it to perl5-porters. Investigation reveals that nobody's bug reports are making it to perl5-porters. Richard pipes up with "sorry! I'm fixing it now!" and a dozen test messages. Suddenly a hundred and fifty bug reports flood into perl5-porters. They are ignored, and discussion peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. Someone proposes a fix for a long-standing bug. Tom cites a four-year old article of Larry's proposing a different fix. The original person asks why it would be done that way. Larry replies enigmatically, giving you the impression that it was just the first solution that came to him. Sarathy says, "patches welcome!" Discussion peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. Jarkko forwards bug reports for five obscure platforms. Someone suggests one of them is an overflow problem in the integer arithmetic. Jarkko posts an analysis of the code in question and observes where it might generate an overflow if the hardware in question didn't behave like every other machine in existence. Someone asks for the relevant POSIX citation. Jarkko points out that POSIX defers to ANSI C on that regard, but ANSI C doesn't define it. Someone suggests a configure test, and Jarkko submits a patch. Nobody remembers the other four bug reports, and discussion peters out. Sarathy posts a patch to fix a bug that most people didn't know existed. Nobody comments. A feature request turns into a discussion on style, which is referred to the advocacy list. The advocacy list refers it to comp.lang.perl.misc, where a virulent debate rages for a week. No conclusion is reached, and a bitter schism is formed between two active newsgroup posters. Discussion has petered out but the bitterness lingers. Sarathy posts his final patch of the day, fixing a bug that most people didn't know existed. A lone voice says, "thanks." Awww, ain't that sad. Well, it's not as bad as that. Sarathy's not the only one patching Perl. There hasn't been any virulence on p5p in months. Here's my take on the list. There are three types of people on p5p. First there are hackers, who are working on fun projects or looking for fun projects to work on. Second is the people representing ports of Perl, trying to making sure their port doesn't get left behind or screwed over. And finally there are the looky-loos, more and more of them each year. I think the best future for Perl lies in getting more active porters and fewer people with too much time to waste starting and participating in arguments. Thank you.