Front page | perl.perl6.meta |
Postings from October 2000
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 08:50:24AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Bradley M. Kuhn writes: > > It seems to me that the perl6-internals, perl6-qa, and perl6-licenses groups > > should be able to produce additional RFCs after this. Of course, the > > Language will be frozen, but these three groups may need to remain fluid > > after the 14 October 2000 annoucement. > > I think perl6-licenses should start to move towards a decision after > the 14th. Find something that there's a rough consensus for, write up > the pro-s and con-s, then give it to Larry. What about pending -licenses RFCs? Bradley has made a very good point that -licenses (and -qa?) aren't directly impacted by the language design and should be immune from the moritorium. Some of the -licenses RFCs could be considered "brainstorming". Most are better categorized as complete proposals for action and discussion. > I think -qa should continue. I don't know about RFCs, though. I see value in the RFC process. It generates more coherent discussion than when someone walks into a thread and says: You're all wrong. Perl should use the QPL. and promptly leaves, leaving an unproductive flamewar in his wake. I'm also in favor of having more stringent acceptance criteria on a per-group basis. For example, -qa may have a required test plan section, and -licenses may have a required redistribution section. These criteria could be drafted in a manner to reduce or eliminate pie-in-the-sky brainstorming RFCs for each group. > I'm still thinking about how best to encode the -qa group's output. Numbering each block of RFCs separately by working group would be one easy way of splitting brainstorming from licensing discussions (RFC #QA-1, etc.). Z.Thread Previous | Thread Next