On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 08:50:24AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > It seems to me that the perl6-internals, perl6-qa, and perl6-licenses groups
> > should be able to produce additional RFCs after this.  Of course, the
> > Language will be frozen, but these three groups may need to remain fluid
> > after the 14 October 2000 annoucement.
> I think perl6-licenses should start to move towards a decision after
> the 14th.  Find something that there's a rough consensus for, write up
> the pro-s and con-s, then give it to Larry.

What about pending -licenses RFCs?  Bradley has made a very good
point that -licenses (and -qa?) aren't directly impacted by the
language design and should be immune from the moritorium. 

Some of the -licenses RFCs could be considered "brainstorming".
Most are better categorized as complete proposals for action
and discussion.

> I think -qa should continue.  I don't know about RFCs, though.  

I see value in the RFC process.  It generates more coherent discussion
than when someone walks into a thread and says:

        You're all wrong.  Perl should use the QPL.

and promptly leaves, leaving an unproductive flamewar in his wake.

I'm also in favor of having more stringent acceptance criteria on
a per-group basis.  For example, -qa may have a required test
plan section, and -licenses may have a required redistribution
section.  These criteria could be drafted in a manner to reduce
or eliminate pie-in-the-sky brainstorming RFCs for each group.

> I'm still thinking about how best to encode the -qa group's output.

Numbering each block of RFCs separately by working group would be
one easy way of splitting brainstorming from licensing discussions
(RFC #QA-1, etc.).


Reply via email to