>>>>> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> =head1 ABSTRACT
MGS> RFCs should be followed by a prototype implementation of their
MGS> proposal which provides something concrete to develop the RFC from and
MGS> helps to avoid endless discussion.
At this point, I think this is too strong. My understanding of Larry's
intention is that we are now brainstorming. Brainstorming can not work
if folks will pre-filter their ideas. Part of the effect is a half-baked
idea on another member of the brainstorming group. (I've seen some of
the effect in Damian's responses)
What do you do with folks, that aren't core hackers? Or with simply
wish lists? Reject them because they aren't prototyped?
What about the pet peeves list that was being generated? These aren't
implementation issues but another set of users to be accounted for.
And the fact that you are allowing some RFCs to go without a prototype
puts this into the _we need an RFC Czar_ tyranny mold.
Let the ideas flow for a while, and then let's go back over them
for fine-tuning or rejection.
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
