develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2021

Re: RFC: formal perl-rfc mailing list for initial submission

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Dean Hamstead
Date:
June 14, 2021 19:52
Subject:
Re: RFC: formal perl-rfc mailing list for initial submission
Message ID:
112ecf2fe2c6d5a266bfae58c3c6039d@fragfest.com.au
Mailing lists have weak and blunt moderation controls, nor do they offer
any features to aid annotations, revisions, or provide a consistent
experience etc. Nor do they lend themselves to socializing the new ideas
widely.

Moving RFC's out of perl5-porters is the right idea, but should go in to
a system that is suited to that purpose. 

Dean

On 2021-06-14 12:40, mah.kitteh via perl5-porters wrote:

> I've been studying this process document, 
> 
> https://github.com/Perl/RFCs/blob/master/docs/process.md 
> 
> This suggestion is sort of a meta-RFC for the process, but it seems like there could be some value in establishing 
> a formal mailing list for the pre-RFC'ing process that perl porters is currently being used for? I would have added this as a GH "issue" in the 
> repo, but that has been disabled (probably a good idea). 
> 
> Benefits: 
> 
> A new list will allow for there to be strict expectations set from the very beginning and allow for there 
> to be more control over the direction of the conversation. A list moderator could actually moderate as to 
> the current set of RFCs being discussed. For example, the flow would look like: 
> 
> * user X send in preliminary RFC to get it on the weekly "docket" 
> * moderator then schedules discussion 
> * there could be a formal open and close of discussion for 1 RFC proposals at a time 
> * anyone wishing to opine would be strongly encouraged to do so formally, in a self-contained "amicus brief" style - i.e., not in a tit-for-tat inline discussion 
> * detailed discussions would be directed to p5p, but only formal "briefs" sent to the rfc list should be considered since they should be self contained and well reasoned 
> to the same standard that RFCs are expected to be 
> 
> Yes this is sounding like a court room. But there might be value is such formalism. Once the pre-RFC period has ended, then PRC or whomever would 
> then take under advisement and "rule" on it in some fair amount of time. The rulings could be more refined than "yes" or "no" - could be also "tabled". 
> 
> One the RFC is formalized, the "amicus" briefs or whatever could be added as part of the preliminary findings. Those who submitted in the pre-process 
> would be discouraged from submitting again unless something has radically changed either in their understanding or as to the RFC proposal itself. 
> 
> Using p5p as the initial arbiter of the merits of an RFC or pre-RFC seems difficult because it's impossible to tame. 
> 
> Problems/Unknowns: 
> 
> * a new list would necessarily require an "opt in" phase 
> * I don't know what it'd look like if p5p and the rfc list were simultaneously discussing the same thing or what bleed-over might occur 
> 
> Hope this helps. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Brett
Thread Previous | Thread Next


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