Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)

[Edward Peschko]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >RFC 362
> >-------
> >
> >=head1 TITLE
> >
> >The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.
> 
> It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The only reason 
> things have paused (and it is a pause, not a stop) is that we're waiting 
> for Larry to take what's been done so far and build something resembling a 
> coherent base we can implement. After that's done then we'll have something 
> to work from, which is a good thing.

Ok, fair enough. I think that perl should have a two-tiered process though, and
it should be ongoing and two tiered. 

Bryan Warnock mentioned PDD as being 'comprehensive', but I think that is a 
mistake. There should be a more formal process for distilling conversations, 
lest we repeat length(@array), '??', etc, ad-nauseum.  PDD should be stuff
that was decided as 'golden' and then implemented.

> If we don't ever stop, ponder, and implement, the RFCs will be just another 
> go-round of intellectual masturbation. (and we *really* don't need to go 
> there...) Yeah, it means the process will be bursty, but that's just the 
> nature of the beast.

Fair enough too, except that my time *too* is bursty, and that the time I can
give may or may not correspond with community time. I'll write them down, and 
post them to perl6-rfc (or perl6-meta). 

And if they miss the 'original' pass, that's fine with me.

Ed