develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from August 2000

Re: (lack of) RFCs

Thread Previous
From:
Dan Sugalski
Date:
August 1, 2000 21:36
Subject:
Re: (lack of) RFCs
Message ID:
4.3.2.7.0.20000802002539.00c3f1a0@24.8.96.48
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


Thread Previous


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About