On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
> Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
> A status change from "Frozen" to "Retired" may be acceptable. Such
> So, what's everyone else think? I really don't want to write up
> an RFC about this. :-)
- an RFC should start with a status of "developing", and
only the author should set the status to frozen/retired (which I assume is
how it is now)
- an RFC should only go to retired if it becomes clear,
from significant discussion, that the idea is best left undone; once this
has been determined, there is no reason to continue updating it, because
the idea isn't going to go forward. Braincycles are a scarce resource;
devote yours elsewhere.
- an RFC should only go to frozen if it becomes clear,
from significant discussion, that the idea is good, is desired by a
reasonable fraction of the community, and has been refined about as far as
it can be. If someone suggests a small incremental improvement, fine,
incorporate it and leave it marked "frozen"; if the change is not minor,
return the status to "developing" so that more discussion can follow. Or
better yet, mark it status as "developing for next week" to show that it
is once again up for review, but that it will be returned to "frozen" at
a definite time if no discussion springs up.
Just my log(e**2) cents worth,