On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 02:03:13PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>I'd expect either the chair of the WG, or the person responsible for the
>broader area the WG lives in, will be ultimately responsible for saying No
>definitively.
I would expect that the WG head could somehow mark an RFC as unwanted
if it was pretty much universally despised by the WG, but that any RFC
which presents a good case for the feature should at least be allowed to
live to pass on to Larry for consideration.
As the WG head for what appears to be the busiest WG around, I'd hate to
have to read, understand, and remember every single posted argument for
or against an RFC, to figure out whether it should be accepted or
rejected.
My aims at this point are
1. to get all the vague speculation that's going on turned into RFCs and
submitted to the librarian, and
2. to encourage RFC maintainers to redraft a second or higher version
after discussion on perl6-language or on a sublist
Hopefully when the RFC writing/discussion phase is ended, the RFCs in
the library will reflect the discussion that's occurred.
I agree with the suggestion that anyone who opposes an RFC vehemently
should write a counter-RFC.
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994
