develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2022

Re: RFC process

Thread Previous
From:
Oodler 577 via perl5-porters
Date:
February 1, 2022 19:46
Subject:
Re: RFC process
Message ID:
YfmODCBD2AipU8sr@odin.sdf-eu.org
* Joseph Brenner <doomvox@gmail.com> [2022-02-01 10:07:28 -0800]:

> This is, of course, looking really good, but what I'm looking for is
> some mechanism for preserving institutional memory-- e.g. if a
> proposal is rejected, is there a way to look up the reasons why?  Even
> a list of links into a p5p email archive would be helpful.

I've been advocating for storing well written briefs in the git repo since
the start. I think this would work really well for preservation of  memory.
P5P is NOT a place to store valuable discussions or information.

> 
> Myself, I've always been reluctance to ask questions on p5p because I
> don't want to bug people to go over what I'm sure seems like old
> ground to them.

This begs for a more formal process. There also needs to be some effort
to encourage what looks to others as a process by the P5PSC, for the P5PSC.
That P5PSC plays such a substantial role in killing an idea is not encouraging
to outsiders. Bad ideas can get nurtured and railroaded extremely easily and
good, meritorious ideas are at risk of getting killed in the womb before they
even have a chance to reveal themselves! 

Not saying this has happened, per se; but I think the idea of preserving
well done artifacts from the process improves all things mentioned above, including
the incubation of good ideas from less influencial community members and some
resiliency against bad ideas that might have grown into 800lb gorillas.

Cheers,
Brett

> 
> 
> 
> On 2/1/22, Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:
> > The RFC process is documented[1] in the RFCs repo[2], but it has evolved a
> > bit as we've been running it, so we discussed a summary of it in the last
> > meeting, and agreed that this is how we think things are/should-be running
> > now.
> >
> > ? If you want to propose a change to the language, send an elevator pitch to
> > p5p (see below)
> > ? The proposal is discussed on p5p. The PSC keeps track of proposals, by
> > looking for "Pre-RFC" threads.
> > ? If the discussion doesn't kill it, and the PSC doesn't veto it, the PSC
> > will ask you to submit a PR on the RFCs repo. They'll give you a number for
> > the RFC.
> > ? Submit a PR, based on the RFC template[3]
> > ? Discussion will continue on the PR, if there are any major issues /
> > disagreements.
> > ? The PSC will either merge or reject the PR. If merged, the Status: field
> > will then track progress.
> > ? Provisional: the what has been agreed, implementation details not nailed
> > down
> > ? Accepted: what and how agreed, awaiting implementation
> > ? Implemented: is in blead
> > ? Shipped/Experimental: has gone out in a stable release, with experimental
> > cover
> > ? Shipped/Stable: in stable release without experimental cover
> >
> >
> > Elevator Pitch
> >
> > Email sent to p5p with the subject line "Pre-RFC: [one-line summary]".
> >
> > This should not be based on the RFC template, but should be 4 paragraphs:
> >
> > 1. problem statement
> > 2. proposed change
> > 3. benefits
> > 4. potential problems
> >
> >
> >
> > We?re expecting some discussion on this; when there's convergence, we'll
> > update the RFCs repo.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/Perl/RFCs/blob/master/docs/process.md
> > [2] https://github.com/Perl/RFCs
> > [3] https://github.com/Perl/RFCs/blob/master/docs/template.md
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to doom+unsubscribe@kzsu.stanford.edu.
> >
> 

-- 
--
oodler@cpan.org
oodler577@sdf-eu.org
SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System - http://sdfeu.org
irc.perl.org #openmp #pdl #native

Thread Previous


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