Jarkko Hietaniemi
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:28:44 -0800
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote: > At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: > >>Bryan C. Warnock writes: > >> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there > >> > be a new one (perl-pdd)? > >> > >>I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan? > > > >I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might > >actually want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs > >for 'external' things,... > > I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from > the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original > deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or > cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that: > > New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the difference); > > Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far Larry's > got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with > something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People > should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off on > some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is > enough. Strongly agreed. -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen