develooper Front page | | Postings from September 2000

Sublist -data RFC wrap-up time

Jeremy Howard
September 17, 2000 22:43
Sublist -data RFC wrap-up time
Message ID:
We need to get our -data RFCs wrapped up. Nate said it rather well
on -objects, so rather than rewrite what he said, I'll just repeat it here.
I had planned to get RFCs frozen by this Wednesday, but that's looking
overly optimistic, so let's aim to meet the same deadlines that -objects are
working to (see the attached message):

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Wiger" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 12:28 PM
Subject: Sublist -objects RFC wrap-up time

> All-
> As Nat has mentioned on -meta, it's time to start wrapping things up. In
> particular, I think the following "deadlines" should apply:
>    1. Any and all *new* RFC's should be submitted by Wednesday at the
>       absolute latest (preferably sooner).
>    2. All existing RFC's should have their final "developing" versions
>       posted by this Friday, Sep 22nd, at the latest.
>    3. All RFCs should be frozen by the following Wednesday, Sep 27th.
>       The hard deadline is Sep 30th for frozen RFCs.
> I will make no efforts to enforce these "deadlines", however please
> consider that the sooner your frozen RFC is done, the sooner Larry will
> be able to evaluate it. He's making his decision in about 3 weeks, so
> the sooner the better. I will make a final dredge through this weekend
> and will post a list of those RFCs still in need of updating Monday (but
> you probably know who you are).
> When freezing your RFCs, please add a section up top called "NOTES ON
> FREEZE", under the ABSTRACT section. In this section, please include a
> brief little synopsis:
>    a) what the general consensus was
>    b) any specific highlights or issues to be resolved still
>    c) any dependencies on other RFC's
> This section should be brief and honest. For an example, please see RFC
> 164.
> The intent here is to clarify key points, and avoid giving Larry RFCs
> that would have a top section that looked like this:
>    =head1 NOTES ON FREEZE
>    Everyone else hated this idea, but I really like it, so
>    screw everybody, I'm freezing it anyways.
> If your idea was disliked overall, be honest with yourself and others.
> I've retracted 3 of mine personally already because they ended up being
> real stinkers, or superceded by better ideas. If you retract your idea,
> an optional "NOTES ON RETRACTION" section would be nice, since it could
> help ideas from being brought up again in the future.
> For an example of this, please see RFC 175.
> Final words: Let's try to avoid flooding the list with last-minute RFCs.
> Let's try to get the main ones out there that could affect the
> fundamental shape of the language. Other stuff can be added as we see
> fit later in Perl 6.0.1, 6.0.2, etc.
> And if you have a problem with an existing RFC, please don't submit a
> counter-RFC as your first course of action. Please try first
> contributing to existing discussions and reaching consensus, since that
> has worked quite effectively so far.
> Your sublist footstool,
> Nate
> Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About