On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Larry Wall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > If something's a mediocre idea, maybe it can be refined into a good idea,
> > and maybe it can't. But voting is unlikely to help there either.
> >
> > Voting doesn't produce consensus. Discussion sometimes does.
[...]
> these posts. So there are probably needs to be a tiny bit of
> procedure, so that ideas fall into one of three loose groups ...
>
> 1.) An idea is obviously good and just accepted
> 2.) An idea spawns discussion that results in concensus.
> 3.) An idea spawns discussion that does not result in
> concensus hence after a certain point, one or more of
> the main proponents or opponents can say this has gone to
> far lets have a vote. The result of this vote is agreed to
> be a working decision that allows things to move forward.
One thing that would also be useful would be a link, next to each
RFC on the RFC index, that shows what its current status is (e.g., "under
discussion", "settled and agreed to", etc). There are a bunch of RFC's up
there which are not currently being discussed; a newcomer has no way of
knowing if something is currently fair game or if he's just missed out on
the discussion and would be wasting time to bring it up. The "status of
various RFC" posts that the RFC Librarian sends out are a big help on
this, but don't go quite far enough (IMHO). (I suppose it's also possible
to search all the archives, but that gets tedious and, with the high
traffic on these lists, is getting more impractical all the time.
Speaking of which, is there currently a way to search all the
lists simultaneously?
Dave
