Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> What are we going to do with the myriad mailing lists the RFC process
> spawned? Are they going to be recycled come design/implementation time, or
> are they closed/dead/gone. http://dev.perl.org/lists has them all listed as
> "current" (even though deadlines expired months ago.) perl6-language-unlink
> is the only one mentioned as being closed.
Great work, Bryan. Thanks! I think it's time to shuffle some mailing
lists off this mortal coil.
> [long list with recommendations removed]
> The ones marked as 'Could be recycled' mean just that. If we drop the
> RFCcentricness of the list, it could be recycled for implementation work.
> The ones marked as 'Freeze' have a chance to be reusued later on to convert
> the Apocalypses to PDDs and to fill in the gaps come implementation time.
> They could be recycled, but need to be frozen in the meantime.
I'm all for removing the inactive mailing lists, those that you say
"could be recycled" or "freeze". If they're needed for implementation
work later, we can recreate them at that time. If they have no
specific task to accomplish, they have no reason to exist.
I'd like to see activity on the topics behind:
* perl6-stdlib
* perl6-build
Dan, Graham--should these lists persist in their current form?
It looks like the perl6-internals-api-{embed,parser,syntax-tree} lists
represent too much fragmentation, and that the perl6-internals list is
where that discussion will take place. Dan?
We'd need Chip's okay to close the Topaz list. I don't know what he
would like to do with it. I don't anticipate a porters list, probably
more like -patches, -submitters, and -core (along the lines of
FreeBSD). We can decide how that will work when we actually have code
to maintain, though.
> The current page should probably break the lists up into two (or
> three, if "Frozen" is acceptable) sections, for the current and
> closed lists.
I'd simply start a new List Graveyard page.
> Ask, I can send you a revamped page after the details have been
> worked out (barring Warnock's Dilemma).
Oh dear, dare I ask "Warnock's Dilemma" is?
> Do any of the aforementioned WG Chairs need to step down or turn
> over the reins?
When their list goes away, so do their reins :-)
Thanks, Bryan.
Nat
