On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 12:57:47AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "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)
"RFCs should be *FOLLOWED BY* a prototype implementation"
"...each RFC should *EVENTUALLY* be accompanyed by a prototype
implementation"
I'm not stating that each RFC should come with a prototype, but that
one should be forthcoming as part of its development process.
> What do you do with folks, that aren't core hackers?
As pointed out in the RFC, many can be prototyped as straight perl 5
modules or source filters. Additionally...
"If the RFC author feels they cannot implement the prototype on their
own, they must find people who can. If they can't then they're not
going to be able to find those to implement the actual code either."
If you can't find the tuits to write the prototype, how are you going
to find them to write the implementation?
> Or with simply wish lists? What about the pet peeves list that was
> being generated? These aren't implementation issues but another set
> of users to be accounted for.
As mentioned "special cases exist. An RFC for which no prototype can
be written (RFC 16, for example)..." also RFC 1 was given as an
example of an exception.
> 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.
Yes, it will require somebody to keep track of the continuing
development and quality of the RFC. Probably Ask or Ziggy. It will
be their job to make sure that RFCs and their prototypes continue to
progress, or if the RFC is complete, or if the RFC requires an
exception. This isn't going to require any Iron Fisted, Shoe Pounding
dicatorship, but somebody's got to keep things sorted.
Do not equate organization with tyranny.
> Let the ideas flow for a while, and then let's go back over them
> for fine-tuning or rejection.
Its been long enough, time to get some order into the chaos.
Brainstorming has been going on for nearly two months, the discussion
has already begun on how to advance beyond it and the issue of the
large volume and low quality of the RFC list has come up.
This proposal will not stop the flow of ideas. It will stil be a
simple matter to write and post an RFC. What it does is provide a way
to funnel and solidify the efforts to develop the RFC and to
->eventually<- weed out idle thoughts, undeveloped proposals and Bad
Ideas.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse
Any failure I encounter in life is the fault of android weasels.
-- everything i ever needed to know i learned from goats
