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

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 seeking 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 ***** 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 do***ent  
> 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 do***ent 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.