Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
On 24 Jul 2000, Simon Cozens wrote: [...] > So it's these people who read everything that can draw up the RFCs > B<AFTER> the viewpoints have been bashed out. [...] > Once momentum has been achieved on an area, take the bunch of people > away to a separate list, but still listen out for suggestions about the > are on the main list. [...] > The separate area lists will have a pumpking in charge. (Let's call it a > pumpking; "managers" spook people.) The aim of the list will be to have > the pumpking collate the ideas and turn them into a design. [...] > This is, I believe, tailored to allow people to participate to whatever > level they want. 1) I'm still worried about having the "central list" turning into another p5p. The idea of working groups was in part to make the process more focused and goal oriented. It sucks for generalists who just wants to follow everything (like me), but I still believe it can make the environment better for those who wants to work on getting something done. 2) A (possibly very short) RFC will be a good place to start the discussion and will give an author right away who you can assume will keep track of what's going down and make sure it gets documented. Having an evolving RFC (and more focused lists) will also make it much much easier for new contributers to "jump on" I believe. but except for that then I agree with all your points and what you wrote looks a lot like how I perceived the talk at the tuesday meeting. - ask -- ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/> more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>Thread Previous | Thread Next