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

Re: RFCs: two proposals for change

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Nathan Torkington
August 4, 2000 08:44
Re: RFCs: two proposals for change
Message ID:
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?


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About