• Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> May 12 2009
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> May 12 2009
• Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> May 12 2009
• Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> May 12 2009
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> May 12 2009
• Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> May 12 2009
• BCS <none anon.com> May 12 2009
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> May 12 2009
• BCS <none anon.com> May 12 2009
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> May 12 2009
• Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> May 12 2009
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> May 12 2009
• Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> May 12 2009
• Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> May 12 2009
• BCS <none anon.com> May 12 2009
• Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> May 12 2009
• Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> May 12 2009

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 I know.  How many months has bug 314* had the most votes?  And 313
 while we're at it.  Importing has been broken for years and instead D2
 is getting thread-local variables.  It seems like a gross misdirection
 of effort.


 314 does not affect correct code, hence is an implicitly less important 
 issue.
 
 The order of importance of bugs is roughly:
 
 1. silently generating bad code
 2. compiler crashes
 3. regressions that break previously working code
 4. not accepting valid code
 5. accepting invalid code
 6. poor error messages


IMHO opponion, these should exactly match the severity categories in bugzilla. 
 
 Throw into that how much work a bug is to fix, how many projects it 
 affects, if there's a patch submitted, etc.


If open bugs were marked with a difficulty level, that may reduce the barrier
to entry for would-be hackers of the dmd source. 

I've been thinking lately that D needs a "help wanted" page that lists broad
categories for contribution and instructions on getting started. The list
posted in the promoting D thread seemed like a great start.

I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter ignoring
the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't talk to Walter
directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have official delegates on
specific aspects of D... People hand picked by Walter as expert proxies. For
example, changes to std.algorithm (and all of Phobos?)  should go through
Andrei. I have not tried to come up with a list of categories. Having an
exhaustive set of D-related concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus
discussion/efforts. It also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be
raised to Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
, phone calls, e-mail etc. 

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Jason House wrote:
 I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
 ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
 talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
 official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
 Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
 all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
 up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
 concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
 also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
 Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
 , phone calls, e-mail etc.


I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.

Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.


Yes!  (Since I'm now living a lot closer than I used to be... :-)

Depending on the timing, I could probably do a talk on something.
Maybe the as-yet-nonexistent automatic differentiation in D, heh.

--bb

Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> writes:

On Tue, 12 May 2009, Walter Bright wrote:

 Jason House wrote:
 I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
 ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
 talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
 official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
 Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
 all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
 up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
 concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
 also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
 Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
 , phone calls, e-mail etc.


 I've been wondering if it's time for another D conference.


I'm pretty sure I could offer the space again (I'd need to reserve the 
rooms far in advance).  Offering my time to schedule and gather speakers 
and people is what caused the last attempt to fizzle.  I'd be happy to 
setup the same signup page (and even enhance it if there's desires for it 
to do more) again.  Really, getting speakers committed and organized is 
the largest part of the work other than the actual event itself.

If there's sufficient interest, and a range of dates chosen, I'll be glad 
to go see what I can arrange with our conferencing guys.

Later,
Brad

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Brad Roberts wrote:
 On Tue, 12 May 2009, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Jason House wrote:
 I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
 ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
 talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
 official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
 Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
 all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
 up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
 concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
 also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
 Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
 , phone calls, e-mail etc.




 I'm pretty sure I could offer the space again (I'd need to reserve the 
 rooms far in advance).  Offering my time to schedule and gather speakers 
 and people is what caused the last attempt to fizzle.  I'd be happy to 
 setup the same signup page (and even enhance it if there's desires for it 
 to do more) again.  Really, getting speakers committed and organized is 
 the largest part of the work other than the actual event itself.
 
 If there's sufficient interest, and a range of dates chosen, I'll be glad 
 to go see what I can arrange with our conferencing guys.


The stars are aligning themselves very nicely for a second D conference. 
However, I would like to suggest a few changes this time around that are 
aimed at improving the quality of the conference.

* All submissions will be reviewed by a committee. They must be 
presented at least as abstract + slides for review. The committee will 
reject weak submissions even though there might be "space" left. No more 
"I think I can slap together something" this time around.

* The conference should not be free. This may seem odd, but I am 
convinced that a non-free conference will end up being better than a 
free one. There will be a cost that's reasonable but non-null. Speakers 
will get appropriate discounts and transportation reimbursements, which 
encourages competitiveness and also allows us to bring an outside 
authority for e.g. a keynote talk.

* We should put together one or more panels. I personally don't care 
much for panels/roundtables/etc., but somehow most people love them. For 
the state of D in particular, I believe the panel format will be very 
appropriate.

In short, I'd like to hold a real, good-quality conference.


Andrei

Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> writes:

On Tue, 12 May 2009, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 The stars are aligning themselves very nicely for a second D conference.
 However, I would like to suggest a few changes this time around that are aimed
 at improving the quality of the conference.
 
 * All submissions will be reviewed by a committee. They must be presented at
 least as abstract + slides for review. The committee will reject weak
 submissions even though there might be "space" left. No more "I think I can
 slap together something" this time around.


Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to justify 
having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there will suddenly 
be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be rejected.  That'd be 
a wonderful place to be.

 * The conference should not be free. This may seem odd, but I am convinced
 that a non-free conference will end up being better than a free one. There
 will be a cost that's reasonable but non-null. Speakers will get appropriate
 discounts and transportation reimbursements, which encourages competitiveness
 and also allows us to bring an outside authority for e.g. a keynote talk.


Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to put 
additional barriers in place.  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.  I'll 
point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have otherwise 
attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying is that there 
needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to attend, though it would 
certainly help.

 * We should put together one or more panels. I personally don't care much for
 panels/roundtables/etc., but somehow most people love them. For the state of D
 in particular, I believe the panel format will be very appropriate.


I agree.  I love panel discussions as they become actual discussions 
rather than presentations with Q/A sprinkled in or after.

 In short, I'd like to hold a real, good-quality conference.


I'm all for this, but I'd quibble about the definition.

Later,
Brad

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Brad,
 
 Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to
 justify having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there
 will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be
 rejected.  That'd be a wonderful place to be.
 


Tell someone they might not be good enough and sometime they will be even 
more willing to try.

 Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to
 put additional barriers in place.  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.
 I'll point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have
 otherwise attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying
 is that there needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to
 attend, though it would certainly help.
 


If $20 keeps someone out, they aren't that interested in the first place

 I agree.  I love panel discussions as they become actual discussions
 rather than presentations with Q/A sprinkled in or after.
 


Something over food would be really cool! Kinda like the dinner in the middle 
of that 1st conference but less spread out.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Hello Brad,
 Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to
 justify having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there
 will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be
 rejected.  That'd be a wonderful place to be.


 Tell someone they might not be good enough and sometime they will be 
 even more willing to try.
 
 Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to
 put additional barriers in place.  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.
 I'll point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have
 otherwise attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying
 is that there needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to
 attend, though it would certainly help.


 If $20 keeps someone out, they aren't that interested in the first place


Yes. No doubt the first conference was an unqualified success (thanks, 
Brad!) but this time around the novelty factor has worn off. It's not 
the first step on the moon, it's going again on the moon.

We must have quality to offer. And at the risk of annoying BCS and 
others, let me point out that I don't think this is the best way to go 
(although it does work and God knows I've done it): "I might (note I 
said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) be able to put 
together a talk on something."

The way it ideally goes is not starting from giving a talk on 
"something"  and then figuring out the "something". Ideally /you have 
something specific to say/ in the first place, and completing a 
submission is a matter of chipping the extra marble away.

About money: if the conference is free the perception is that you get 
what you paid for. Remember how many people said "yeah, I might make it" 
and then didn't show? I think people should get a lot this time around, 
and that the organizers and participants should make a mutual commitment 
by putting a monetary value on it.


Andrei

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Andrei,

 We must have quality to offer. And at the risk of annoying BCS and
 others, let me point out that I don't think this is the best way to go
 (although it does work and God knows I've done it): "I might (note I
 said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) be able to put
 together a talk on something."


For those who didn't spot the inside joke there: Last time around I said 
something non-committal about maybe having something I could present and 
the next thing I knew, I had an hour slot in the schedule to fill, talk about 
motivation to get something done!

The nitty-gritty this time around is that I have a project in mind that, 
if I can get it working would make a reasonable presentation (but I haven't 
started it yet). If I /knew/ there was as call for presentations out and 
a deadline (and maybe funds to get speakers on site :) I'd *make* time to 
see what I could do with it and then commit, or not. 

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Hello Andrei,
 
 We must have quality to offer. And at the risk of annoying BCS and
 others, let me point out that I don't think this is the best way to go
 (although it does work and God knows I've done it): "I might (note I
 said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) be able to put
 together a talk on something."


 For those who didn't spot the inside joke there: Last time around I said 
 something non-committal about maybe having something I could present and 
 the next thing I knew, I had an hour slot in the schedule to fill, talk 
 about motivation to get something done!
 
 The nitty-gritty this time around is that I have a project in mind that, 
 if I can get it working would make a reasonable presentation (but I 
 haven't started it yet). If I /knew/ there was as call for presentations 
 out and a deadline (and maybe funds to get speakers on site :) I'd 
 *make* time to see what I could do with it and then commit, or not.
 


That sounds great. Thank you for not getting offended, I'm glad you 
understood my point.

Andrei

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 BCS wrote:
 Hello Brad,
 Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to
 justify having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there
 will suddenly be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be
 rejected.  That'd be a wonderful place to be.


 Tell someone they might not be good enough and sometime they will be 
 even more willing to try.

 Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to
 put additional barriers in place.  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.
 I'll point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have
 otherwise attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying
 is that there needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to
 attend, though it would certainly help.


 If $20 keeps someone out, they aren't that interested in the first place


 Yes. No doubt the first conference was an unqualified success (thanks, 
 Brad!) but this time around the novelty factor has worn off. It's not 
 the first step on the moon, it's going again on the moon.


Yes, and this time around, we should *really* try to get an audience 
that represents the industry. While M$ might not attend, Google, Nokia, 
Apple, game developers, and others might be good targets.

 We must have quality to offer. And at the risk of annoying BCS and 
 others, let me point out that I don't think this is the best way to go 
 (although it does work and God knows I've done it): "I might (note I 
 said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) be able to put 
 together a talk on something."
 
 The way it ideally goes is not starting from giving a talk on 
 "something"  and then figuring out the "something". Ideally /you have 
 something specific to say/ in the first place, and completing a 
 submission is a matter of chipping the extra marble away.


We should recognize such individuals, and offer them even help in 
writing their presentations. The main thing is, how important these are 
for D, the advancement of a perception of D as a Best Language, and the 
merits of such individuals' accomplishments.

 About money: if the conference is free the perception is that you get 
 what you paid for. Remember how many people said "yeah, I might make it" 
 and then didn't show? I think people should get a lot this time around, 
 and that the organizers and participants should make a mutual commitment 
 by putting a monetary value on it.


Prepaid attendance is a must. To achieve that, we have to offer big 
discounts for early (paid) registrations. That money can also be 
conveniently used for setting up the conference.

A dedicated set of web pages, (or even a web site, or sub-site) has to 
be set up, designed and carefully written, or we won't get squat.

A call for papers has to be attractive enough to not only attract 
potential presenters, but also to attract their employers so that these 
individuals get the resources (time off, funding, and guarantees of 
transport and lodging costs, should they not be chosen for presenting) 
necessary to make a serious attempt at a qualifiable entry.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Brad Roberts wrote:
 Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to justify 
 having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there will suddenly 
 be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be rejected.  That'd be 
 a wonderful place to be.


It's a fair amount of work to put together a presentation. Being able to 
offer a free ticket, plus perhaps some expense reimbursement for 
speakers, can be very motivating (and is only fair).

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

Brad Roberts wrote:
 On Tue, 12 May 2009, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 The stars are aligning themselves very nicely for a second D conference.
 However, I would like to suggest a few changes this time around that are aimed
 at improving the quality of the conference.

 * All submissions will be reviewed by a committee. They must be presented at
 least as abstract + slides for review. The committee will reject weak
 submissions even though there might be "space" left. No more "I think I can
 slap together something" this time around.


 Two or whatever years ago, I was _lucky_ to get enough speakers to justify 
 having the conference.  I see no reason to expect that there will suddenly 
 be a wealth of them such that proposed talks could be rejected.  That'd be 
 a wonderful place to be.


The more people that get to hear the "call for papers", the more stuff 
you have to choose from. Also helping, motivating, and enabling more 
people to (or even try to) write papers, increases the likelihood that a 
half dozen of them are adequate.

 * The conference should not be free. This may seem odd, but I am convinced
 that a non-free conference will end up being better than a free one. There
 will be a cost that's reasonable but non-null. Speakers will get appropriate
 discounts and transportation reimbursements, which encourages competitiveness
 and also allows us to bring an outside authority for e.g. a keynote talk.


 Given the cost of attendance (airfare, lodging, etc), I'm reluctant to put 
 additional barriers in place.


There are two kinds of attendees. Those who do D on their own, and then 
those who come paid by their employers. (Many of which don't even tinker 
with D, but who represent communities that are interested of D, or just 
in general want to stay up to date.)

For the latter, it may even be easier to get funding, if the conference 
costs even 30% of the airfare + lodging cost. (Yes, I'm digging my own 
grave here, but it's D's cause I'm furthering here, not my own. And yes, 
that makes me stupid, agreed.)

  But I wouldn't say no to the idea.  I'll 
 point out that last year some of the speakers who couldn't have otherwise 
 attended were assisted flown in.  What you're really saying is that there 
 needs to be a budget.  That doesn't imply cost to attend, though it would 
 certainly help.
 
 * We should put together one or more panels. I personally don't care much for
 panels/roundtables/etc., but somehow most people love them. For the state of D
 in particular, I believe the panel format will be very appropriate.


 I agree.  I love panel discussions as they become actual discussions 
 rather than presentations with Q/A sprinkled in or after.
 
 In short, I'd like to hold a real, good-quality conference.


 I'm all for this, but I'd quibble about the definition.
 
 Later,
 Brad

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Brad Roberts wrote:
 On Tue, 12 May 2009, Walter Bright wrote:

 Jason House wrote:
 I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
 ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
 talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
 official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
 Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
 all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
 up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
 concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
 also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
 Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
 , phone calls, e-mail etc.




 I'm pretty sure I could offer the space again (I'd need to reserve the 
 rooms far in advance).  Offering my time to schedule and gather 
 speakers and people is what caused the last attempt to fizzle.  I'd be 
 happy to setup the same signup page (and even enhance it if there's 
 desires for it to do more) again.  Really, getting speakers committed 
 and organized is the largest part of the work other than the actual 
 event itself.

 If there's sufficient interest, and a range of dates chosen, I'll be 
 glad to go see what I can arrange with our conferencing guys.


 The stars are aligning themselves very nicely for a second D conference. 
 However, I would like to suggest a few changes this time around that are 
 aimed at improving the quality of the conference.
 
 * All submissions will be reviewed by a committee. They must be 
 presented at least as abstract + slides for review. The committee will 
 reject weak submissions even though there might be "space" left. No more 
 "I think I can slap together something" this time around.


Yes.

 * The conference should not be free. This may seem odd, but I am 
 convinced that a non-free conference will end up being better than a 
 free one. There will be a cost that's reasonable but non-null. Speakers 
 will get appropriate discounts and transportation reimbursements, which 
 encourages competitiveness and also allows us to bring an outside 
 authority for e.g. a keynote talk.


However I'd like to dislike this idea, I simply have to agree.

 * We should put together one or more panels. I personally don't care 
 much for panels/roundtables/etc., but somehow most people love them. For 
 the state of D in particular, I believe the panel format will be very 
 appropriate.


For such a conference, what's needed is a panel with Walter, another 
with Andrei, with Don Clugston, with Sean Kelly, and then, if time 
allows, some panels with varying combinations of the three.

(What the headlines are for those, makes no difference! Folks will want 
to hear these people, period.)

 In short, I'd like to hold a real, good-quality conference.

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Walter,

 Jason House wrote:
 
 I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
 ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
 talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
 official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
 Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
 all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
 up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
 concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
 also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
 Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
 , phone calls, e-mail etc.
 


 


I'm game. I might (note I said might, I'm not committing to anything... yet) 
be able to put together a talk on something.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

Jason House wrote:
 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 I know.  How many months has bug 314* had the most votes?  And 313
 while we're at it.  Importing has been broken for years and instead D2
 is getting thread-local variables.  It seems like a gross misdirection
 of effort.


 issue.

 The order of importance of bugs is roughly:

 1. silently generating bad code
 2. compiler crashes
 3. regressions that break previously working code
 4. not accepting valid code
 5. accepting invalid code
 6. poor error messages




 IMHO opponion, these should exactly match the severity categories in
 bugzilla.
 
 Throw into that how much work a bug is to fix, how many projects it
  affects, if there's a patch submitted, etc.


 If open bugs were marked with a difficulty level, that may reduce the
 barrier to entry for would-be hackers of the dmd source.


Whee, that's a new take on this one, and I wholeheartedly support the 
notion!

(And, of course, an educated first-reading guess from a D guru is 
enough, nobody expects something that perfectly correlates with some 
a-posteriori notion of actual effort!)

 I've been thinking lately that D needs a "help wanted" page that
 lists broad categories for contribution and instructions on getting
 started. The list posted in the promoting D thread seemed like a
 great start.


Yes!

 I've also wondered a bit about the impression people have of Walter
 ignoring the things most important to them. Obviously, everyone can't
 talk to Walter directly. I wonder if it would be possible to have
 official delegates on specific aspects of D... People hand picked by
 Walter as expert proxies. For example, changes to std.algorithm (and
 all of Phobos?)  should go through Andrei. I have not tried to come
 up with a list of categories. Having an exhaustive set of D-related
 concerns ans officisl proxies would help focus discussion/efforts. It
 also gives a way for a the most important concerns to be raised to
 Walter directly through back channels such as coffee shop discussions
 , phone calls, e-mail etc.



Very valid points!

As a precedent, I've always wondered how Linus Torvalds (of Linxu fame) 
made the transition from about 5 guys as helpers to 1000 guys, seeming 
to have *no* problem at all, expanding in less than a few months.

I've always thought that he must've been lucky as hell, but then I 
realise that that's just lazy thinking, after the fact. The other 
explanation worries the daylights out of me: maybe he simply was a 
superior being. Meaning that, first of all, just reading Tanenbaum, he 
understood, and perceived as trivial, stuff that sent everybody else 
screaming to the woods. *And*, second, that creating, constantly 
modifying, and expanding, a hierarchy of aides, was no bigger a thing 
for him, than programming a balanced red-black tree.

Actually, we're luckier than Linus, because we've already got Andrei, 
and Don ((and a few others, apologies for not mentioning here!!!)), (in 
addition to Walter, of course), but the rest of the "forest management" 
has been, ehh, haphazard, at the most, so far.

Creating SIGs, hierarchies, work flows, compartmentalizing task groups, 
assigning responsibilities, letting go of "all threads in _my_ hands", 
distributing authority, even Specifying web page specs and arrays of 
them -- are all tasks that traditionally have *not* been the forte of 
"programming geeks" or 'auteurs'.

As we approach the day when most of the things what we'd (as D geeks) 
believe should be met (to admittedly varying degrees of success), it 
becomes increasingly important to recognize (and *admit*) the things we 
*must deal with* as the next cohort of issues.

((I can only hope that this makes sense to more than half of the readers.))

Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> writes:

On Wed, 13 May 2009, Georg Wrede wrote:

 As a precedent, I've always wondered how Linus Torvalds (of Linxu fame) made
 the transition from about 5 guys as helpers to 1000 guys, seeming to have *no*
 problem at all, expanding in less than a few months.
 
 I've always thought that he must've been lucky as hell, but then I realise
 that that's just lazy thinking, after the fact. The other explanation worries
 the daylights out of me: maybe he simply was a superior being. Meaning that,
 first of all, just reading Tanenbaum, he understood, and perceived as trivial,
 stuff that sent everybody else screaming to the woods. *And*, second, that
 creating, constantly modifying, and expanding, a hierarchy of aides, was no
 bigger a thing for him, than programming a balanced red-black tree.
 
 Actually, we're luckier than Linus, because we've already got Andrei, and Don
 ((and a few others, apologies for not mentioning here!!!)), (in addition to
 Walter, of course), but the rest of the "forest management" has been, ehh,
 haphazard, at the most, so far.


This one is relatively easy to answer.  He's still got just a handfull of 
guys.  THEY fan out to the multitudes and aggregate changes that he pulls 
in.  There's a very high degree of trust between Linus and the next tier 
of developers.  He does some level of spot checking, primarily in core 
areas and areas known to be problems, but by and large, there's a lot of 
code that's just directly funnelled through the others that own various 
subsystems.

Similarly, asside from the odd code review here and there, Andrei's 
changes to Phobos are fully under his control.

We're growing in baby steps, but there's a lot of 'em left. :)

Later,
Brad