I am enthusiastically in support!
Given Rick, Nick ,and Merijn's endorsement, this seems like a no-brainer to support.
I'm definitely in favour of Tony doing this work.
Please also clean up usage of 'utf8' versus 'utf-8'. I'd like to see the extra '-' dropped everywhere (within Perl).
Sounds good to me! Applicant has been helpful and responsive to my questions.
I believe that this grant should be approved. Tony has significant expertise, skills, and, not least, good judgment. It would be a mistake to turn this down.
If Rick, Nick, and Merijn endorse then so do I
Getting more of Tony's time will be a great benefit.
Core exception objects? That would be awesome.
My support is qualified: I believe the priority of tasks is wrong and I don't support the grant unless the priority is revised.
We don't need more hours on bug fixing. Not to discount the heroics of Nick, Dave and many others, but many of the bugs being fixed have existed for years, have been worked around, and will take years to reach widespread production even if fixed.
There is a repetitive complaint by some on p5p (and fiveperl) that "we" don't do good code review, that the learning curve to contribution is a vertical cliff, that patches warnock, and that new contributors are treated shabbily for various reasons and thus get discouraged.
Until the dysfunctional contribution problem is addressed, we will not improve the bigger bus number problem.
Meanwhile, people work on features because they get excited about them and we've had no shortage of features implemented in the last few years. I don't think TPF should fund work that is already happening (albeit suboptimally without holistic language design).
What is *not* happening is code review and making perl easier (and friendlier) to contribute to.
I think the priority should be on code review and helping contributors (both directly on the list and indirectly by making the code/repo easier to work with).
If that doesn't take 20 hours a week, then any remaining time could go to bug triage or bug fixing.
The order in the proposal was intended as a priority order, but it looks like I didn't state that.
So pumpking tasks first, then reviews, then bug fixes, etc.
I'm a late-comer. I blame vacation.
I've known about Tony considering applying for such a grant for some time and have been eagerly waiting for it to become reality. Tony has proven that his both qualified and trustworthy for such an open grant. Particularly, I am excited that Tony wants to work on what the pumpking considers most important. (Though I assume and hope that this, in practice, results from a dialogue between the two.)
I do not agree with the objections raised regarding the topic of the grant.