Re: (lack of) RFCs

At 11:25 PM 8/1/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>Is is just me or are there lots of RFCable discussion without RFCs?
>The way I look at RFCs is that they, as a whole, form a well defined
>set of documents that we can give to Larry for perusal rather than
>have him wade through all the discussions and play "find the
>consensus".

We have been pushing for RFCs. That doesn't mean that discussion on 
semi-nebulous things are out--they're just precursors to RFCs.

There's also reasonable interstitial traffic on things that are related to 
the topic area, but not on a single concrete thing. That seems OK too, 
though it's up to the list chair. (Discussions of function inlining and 
cache hit/miss issues are certainly within the purview of the internals 
list, though not things that warrant RFCs)

					Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk

• (lack of) RFCs by Jonathan Scott Duff
• Re: (lack of) RFCs by Dan Sugalski