> On 23 Jun 2009, at 02:05, David Boyes wrote: > > > The RFC template serves many other organizations well and I think we > > all understand it and understand the level of detail required. > > Perhaps that might be a good starting place. > > That's exactly what our standardisation mechanism requires ...
Is there a place where that's written up? An admittedly trivial search didn't locate anything that looked immediately likely. If the mechanism requires a RFC-style document, then I guess I'm missing the point of the previous few days discussion on what is and isn't in a proposal, then. If a number of people are making the point that important pieces are being left out of proposed ideas, then I'd say there needs to be a step back and agree on what a proposal should be before being sent here. > However, what I think we're interested in at present is expressions of > intent. As a group we currently have no idea about what changes people > are considering making. Remember that the RFCs were originally working documents. I don't see the two (expression of intent and a RFC-style document) as incompatible. Aim, then fire. There are too few people involved in this effort as it is; I think that having some structure to proposals to help them be reasonably baked by the time it reaches public discussion is salubrious. _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
