On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:52:53AM +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote:
> 2) (SBCL hacker's point of view). I'm a consultant. I earn most of
> my living with Java and Perl, but I would welcome the opportunity to
> hack SBCL (new features, new libraries, speed improvements, whatever)
> on a funded basis. I'd rather not be touting for business if it means
> treading on anyones' toes, though. Notably, Bill Newman spent what
> must have been an incredible amount of time in getting the thing to
> bootstrap cleanly in the first place, and other people have since been
> doing a lot of the more important and less glamorous stuff (like,
> fixing bugs) while I've been off playing with the fairies^W^W^W^Wcut
> and pasting CMUCL code to port it to odd systems that nobody will ever
I might be available for consulting myself, but I wouldn't feel like
you were treading on my toes even if you ended up getting a contract I
wished I'd gotten. I don't think work on a piece of free software
justifies territorial rights to everything related to that software.
> Would it be a good idea to maintain and publish a list of people who
> can offer consultancy/contract work on SBCL, with contact details,
> geographical location, specialist areas, rates if appropriate? This
> would have two beneficial effects as far as I'm concerned: (1) I could
> put my name on it, (2) when I do want to use SBCL in customer
> projects, I could point my customers at the other names on it to give
> them some comfort that there are other people out there who also
> understand it. The list could be kept in the source distribution
> and/or on the web site.
> Or is this whole idea a piece of crass opportunism for which come the
> morning my only excuse will be to plead that PPC assembler has rotted
> my brain? What say you all?
Advertising for work is fine with me. However..
There don't seem to be many customers who come in looking for support
for free Lisp: Cadabra seems to've been the exception, not the rule.
Therefore, advertising linked to a free Lisp implementation doesn't
seem likely to be a very effective way to find customers. I expect
that even if we all tried to be crassly opportunistic (?), we'd all be
find it didn't do any good. (Sometimes, "the problem with pragmatism
is that it doesn't work".:-) But if what you need is to reassure
customers (who are found through another channel) that they're not
getting locked into a maintenance dead end with SBCL, it might be
effective to attach some information to the distribution. (Or to the
web site, or something, but I'll assume the distribution for now.)
I don't know what's allowed/supported at SourceForge, or what's the
proper way to do it with SourceForge resources. But I'm sure that
including contributor contact information in the source distribution
would be OK. Then, if people who want to talk about availability for
Lisp work did it on another web site, and their contact information
included a URL for that site, that *ought* to be OK. (If it's not,
I'll be really annoyed at SourceForge.) Would such an arrangement be
adequate for what you want to do?
As usual, I worry about information drifting out of date, so I'd
probably attach explicit dates to the information. (Or maybe not if
there's some CVS trick or something which'd make the dates redundant,
dunno.) Maybe a CONTRIBUTORS (or COMMUNITY?) file could look something
This file contains basic contact information for people who've
worked on SBCL. Each entry is listed with the date when it
was last updated or confirmed.
Bill Newman ("WHN") william.newman@...
Dan Barlow ("DB") http://www.telent.net/dna/
Some One Else ("SOE") se@...
Another Person ("AP") http://www.anothercompany.anotherdomain/~another
(where I've just made up your contact information arbitrarily)
with information moving up in date as it was corrected or verified.
Keeping information up to date can be a pain, so e.g. I forget to mess
with NEWS when I make a relevant change, and I forget to mess with
CREDITS and/or NEWS when someone else makes a relevant change.
(Speaking of which, I'll digress: Please, anyone I've overlooked this
way, don't be shy about reminding me about this. Or if you are shy,
this is one case where I wouldn't need to nag you to discuss the topic
on the list, since archival is only as important as you think it is,
so personal e-mail is fine.)
But a CONTRIBUTORS file like that would probably be really easy to
maintain, since it should change seldom and any time it drifts out of
date I'll tend to get a specific correction from the person concerned.
So if you or other people are interested, I'd be happy to add it to
other suggestions? comments on these suggestions and comments?
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
-- Daniel Demus <demus@...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C