Oh well. This one.

Just some context: Samantha McVey was/is involved with the guy who kept pushing repositories with names like perl6-n_g_er (fully spelled out, of course) and commit messages like "Get a job, n_g_er". Just look at this juicy thread:

https://twitter.com/kraih/status/1408525949218570240

There was also a Slack log which corroborated what Sebastian had written about, and I don't know why I spent time to read it, but I have read it, and at the end I don't know why CAT even exists, what exact function it fulfills except for apparently being a SI unit of hypocrisy, and what a joke the whole thing (TPF and CAT both) is.

Fighting over who to cancel is an ugly thing, and we need not do it. What is gained? Civility? The grim possibility of being ostracized is itself the object of conflict. Any sufficiently motivated argument devolves to the question of who deserves to be canceled.

Remove this hazard entirely. Make it easier to step away from an ugly thread.

This is a voluntary meritocracy, not a revolutionary committee for the eradication of hidden societal power structures. As such, the question of who to lynch today has no place in it.

Whatever happens to Perl and Larry Wall they will always have a place in my heart. In many ways Larry was the ultimate hacker's hacker and I think programming culture was a little more colourful back in the 90s and early 2000s when Perl was popular. There's never been anything quite like Perl Monks.

I did not follow the rise of the Perl Foundation, was it "we need to pay these people for the work they do for the community" or was it "We need a way to take this away from Larry Wall?"

I wonder if this kind of stuff is more likely to occur in technical communities that are becoming irrelevant but at one point had a lot of exposure.

Oh, MST...