Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from August 2000
Stephen P. Potter writes: > I still think (as I stated in msg 805) that we need three levels. > An RFC, a proposal, and an implementation plan. I think the particular > names we use are pretty much irrelevent; no matter what we use someone will > get confused unless they are part of the process. It's too soon to worry about the fine details of implementation, and each RFC is supposed to at least hand-wave towards implementation to show that it can be done. Once we have Larry's choice of the language, I imagine we'll be coming up with detailed designs for implementation. I want us to think about those *after* this design phase, so we don't waste time infinitely debating procedural issues. I think the main issue then is "how do we tell people that discussion of this RFC should end, for better or worse"? This boils down to an open or closed distinction. Make sense to have chairs able to say "ok, discussion on this RFC is closed" and mark the RFC as such? Too dictatorial? NatThread Previous | Thread Next