On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 02:18:50AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 01:35:42AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
> >
> > Problem: Frozen RFCs are being updated.
>
> Solution #4: Slip the RFC status back to 'developing'.
I'd rather not. That appears to invite more discussion when we're
trying to wrap things up.
> If someone updates a frozen RFC, its obviously developing again.
Or it was obviously frozen prematurely.
> The
> new RFC will require review. Then the maintainer can change the
> status back to frozen, or continue updating.
According to http://dev.perl.org/rfc/by-group.html (and by-number.html)
there are 207 RFCs that are currently under development. (The
number is actually closer to 220; Damian seems to have sent over
a dozen RFCs in the last 12 hours or so.)
The whole point of having frozen RFCs (and cleaning everything up
prior to 10/1) is to reduce the number of ideas out there in the
ether that are unfinished or up for discussion.
> 'Biologists have a term for things which are stable. It is "dead".'
Which reminds me, Jarkko has some RFCs which appear to be "stable". ;-)
Z.
