On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 01:53:25PM -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Steve Simmons explained
> > >
> > > IMHO someone should write an RFC on why perl6 should NOT have
> > > comments. The RFC editor doesn't have time to follow these zillions
> > > of discussions and write documents based on them.
> >
> > Ooog, horrible phrasing on my part. That should read ``the editor
> > of the RFC which is rejected.'' Sorry....
>
> This brings up a very important question (especially since you used my RFC
> as an example), which is: how shall we know when a particular RFC is
> rejected? My understanding was we should generate RFC's. I don't know if (or
> particularly how) we should be rejecting them before they are fully
> released.
Well, RFCs should (ideally) have some limiting time for which everyone to
get their two cents in. As the deadline approaches the RFC-maintainer
puts together a summary of the discussion so far and releases v2 of the
RFC. And then, if it needs more discussion, we iterate. It's up to the
RFC-maintainer or the WG -chair to decide if we're flogging dead horses.
BTW, I propose that RFCs have a Status: field as part of the VERSION.
Here are some possible values that I can see:
Status: accepted # we all agree that it should go in
Status: rejected # we all agree that it shouldn't go in
Status: tabled # shelved, put away for now
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
