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

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

Thread Previous
From:
mah.kitteh via perl5-porters
Date:
June 14, 2021 19:56
Subject:
Re: RFC: formal perl-rfc mailing list for initial submission
Message ID:
hhXqFO7yzlYvYSKunj_qTdTJot_17BOtCKkW3h9tSiG8fjz-mWRpfbFZobWQLl7UselZBy4pimxS_oJjPF6emdG8u0LbegzDl7LYfP72KQg=@protonmail.ch
Sure. Perhaps the value here is the formalization of the initial phase, one that encourages orderly and bounded submission og high quality "comments" for the PRC (or whomever) to consider.

It would also generate a nice set of artifacts of (hopefully) high quality opinions based on some sort of analysis that would serve well as background information for the future.

Cheers,
Brett
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, June 14th, 2021 at 2:52 PM, Dean Hamstead <dean@fragfest.com.au> wrote:

> 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


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