CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0341-1.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0341-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0341-1.txt	2019/09/05 23:17:16	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0341-1.txt	2019/09/09 03:17:32	1.2
@@ -1997,6 +1997,116 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019  2:35 PM
+
+> But it [has] exactly the same purpose as the Ada-Comment mailing list
+
+I agree that there is some overlap between the purposes of the Ada-Comment 
+mailing list and the ada-spark-rfcs portal, but I think there are also some
+important differences (ignoring the obvious difference regarding the treatment 
+of SPARK).
+
+One such difference is that AdaCore has committed to investing resources to 
+evaluating and refining proposals that come in through the latter channel, 
+with the goal of stimulating Ada language design discussion (and, in 
+particular, attracting ideas from folks who, for whatever reasons, have chosen 
+not to use Ada-Comment).
+
+As Randy points out, the ada-spark-rfcs portal is sponsored by a single vendor 
+and, as such, certainly should not replace Ada-Comment. On the other hand, if 
+someone wants to take advantage of this new option that AdaCore is offering, 
+why would anyone want to discourage that?
+
+There is the practical issue of fragmented discussions getting distributed 
+over multiple forums.
+
+We've seen this in cases involving the ada-spark-rfcs site and the ARG list 
+(e.g., the discussion of improving the parameter profile for Put_Image), but
+this seems no worse than what we have seen in the past with Ada-Comment and 
+the ARG list.
+
+It might be a problematic new source of confusion if we started seeing ongoing 
+discussions of similar topics on both Ada-Comment and the ada-spark-rfcs 
+portal. To my knowledge, this has not been a problem in practice. And if it 
+does arise, the cost would still have to be weighed against the overall 
+benefit of the new portal.
+
+Similarly, if lots of other Ada stakeholders each decided to adopt this 
+approach, that proliferation of forums could be a problem; we'll cross that 
+bridge in the unlikely event that we ever come to it.
+
+This does mean that ARG-list subscribers now need to look one more place in 
+order to keep up with what is going on, but if this new portal can in fact 
+help with stimulating constructive discussion then that seems like a small 
+price to pay.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Richard Wai
+Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019  3:13 PM
+
+> One such difference is that AdaCore has committed to investing 
+> resources to evaluating and refining proposals that come in through 
+> the latter channel, with the goal of stimulating Ada language design 
+> discussion (and, in particular, attracting ideas from folks who, for 
+> whatever reasons, have chosen not to use Ada-Comment).
+> 
+> As Randy points out, the ada-spark-rfcs portal is sponsored by a 
+> single vendor and, as such, certainly should not replace Ada-Comment. 
+> On the other hand, if someone wants to take advantage of this new 
+> option that AdaCore is offering, why would anyone want to discourage that?
+
+This is a problem though. Many new-comers to the community often wrongly see 
+AdaCore as the owner of Ada. As someone who is active in the more contemporary 
+communities (such as Reddit), I can tell you that far too many newcomers to Ada
+genuinely believe that AdaCore's "GNAT Community" is the only free Ada compiler
+available. This harms Ada adoption because many people dismiss Ada for not 
+being free. Rust is popular because anyone can grab the fully free compiler 
+and write anything, including commercial software, with zero hindrance. Same
+goes for Java, C, C++, Python, GO, et al.
+
+I do not think AdaCore trying to set up their own "rfc" mechanism will help 
+people understand that Ada is not owned by anyone.
+
+If AdaCore committed resources to helping the ARG set-up something, I might 
+appreciate that "investment" of resources. Otherwise it just looks like a 
+marketing ploy.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019  3:13 PM
+
+> As Randy points out, the ada-spark-rfcs portal is sponsored by a 
+> single vendor and, as such, certainly should not replace Ada-Comment.
+
+I note that there are more than 90 valid e-mail addresses joined to 
+Ada-Comment, so clearly a large number of people get the e-mails from that 
+list and can participate in discussions. Obviously, many of them have not 
+chosen to participate in discussions there for whatever reason, and it would 
+be valuable to find out what could stimulate more discussion.
+
+Ideally, we would put general feature discussions on the Ada-Comment list, 
+whereas stuff like detailed wording discussions and adminstrative stuff would 
+stay here. But we've already learned that moving a discussion is impossible, 
+and discussions that morph from wording to syntax to goodness inevitably end 
+up on the wrong forum.
+
+> This does mean that ARG-list subscribers now need to look one more 
+> place in order to keep up with what is going on, but if this new 
+> portal can in fact help with stimulating constructive discussion then 
+> that seems like a small price to pay.
+
+I think Richard covered this pretty well.
+
+At some point pretty soon we'll need to move from mailing lists to some other 
+sort of technology (forums, perhaps), for no other reason than the mailing 
+list software is old and running here -- which won't be possible forever 
+(I hope I'm not still doing this in 2040, unlike John :-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Yannick Moy
 Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019  5:55 AM
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent