Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2022
Den 18.06.2022 21:12, skrev Ricardo Signes: > Porters, > > I am glad we have tried to formalize "how we decide to change the > design of things in perl" to something more structured than "post on > p5p until you give up or get it." The RFC process as it's currently > in place <https://github.com/Perl/RFCs/blob/main/docs/process.md>, > though, feels like it's not good enough yet. > … > The problem with this as a state diagram is that it defines the > /states/ pretty well, but very little about the /transitions/. > > First: what happens at that "?" box after submission to p5p? Then, > if the next result is "exploratory RFC", who decides that? How is it > communicated? Who is responsible for doing it, whatever "it" is? (It > seems to be "someone who can commit to the RFCs repo assigns an ID and > creates the exploratory RFC, which I believe means "edits the README > file.") > > I would like to rewrite this document, not to change particularly > much, but to very clearly define each phase and how the RFC moves from > one to the other, and who is intended to do what. I may propose some > procedural changes if documenting current ones makes clear that > current procedures are too unclear or onerous. > > Finally, I am tempted to include "discussion belongs on p5p, not Yet > Another Issue Tracker," unless stopped. While code review on GitHub > is just great, having three places for discussion of designs is not. > > This is your chance to get out in front of me and say "don't do it!" > or "I will buy you a beer if you get it done by July!" I am not > looking for suggestions on massive overhauls at this time. > +1 for more defined transition documentation/definition. Is there a need for exploratory step on top of p5p discussion and pre-rfc threads or could one just go for the provisional step? (Finding the sweet spot between rigid structural, well-defined processes and having a low threshold to contributing is always great) -- Nicolas MendozaThread Previous