Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> I'd like to take advantage of the 2-week RFC freeze to focus on the
> process we set up for the first two months of Perl6. That way, we can
> start talking about more procedural issues, like what happens when someone
> comes up with v1 of an RFC but abandons it for 7 weeks. Does it become
> "Status: Dormant"?
>
> Or is it enough of an improvement over the p5p process to have a
> synopsis and a clear thread of discussion to start examining?
> "Go check last year's archives for this discussion" isn't as difficult
> with p6 as it has been with p5p.
Well, not having been on p5p for a long time, but having had to wade
through the archives on *many* occasions, I can say that I think the
current process is a substantial improvement. At the very least, it
begins with a very clear idea, including possible implementation, etc,
and then progresses from there. If you want to retrace an idea, you
check the RFC list, then find that RFC's discussion on the mailing
archive.
Even just browsing the mail archives themselves is easier, because the
threads have RFC numbers and clear titles. If people were a little more
reliable about changing the title of the Subject when the thread changes
(witness "$a in @b" which covered basically all of Perl :), the process
would be pretty damn good.
I personally don't really think it needs too much more structure. A
"Dormant" idea is just fine, but making the process overly bureaucratic
is a danger. I certainly wouldn't want it to get un-fun.
Anyways, that's my input, as a newcomer to the scene. ;-) Hope it helps.
> > Of course, I'm probably full of crap too...
>
> Ditto. :-)
My three? :-)
-Nate
