Adam Turoff wrote:
> RFC Improvement #1:  All updated RFCs must contain a CHANGES section.
> RFC Improvement #2:  All updated RFCs must contain a synopsis of
>                      relevant discussion, including opposing views.
> RFC Improvement #3:  All final RFCs must contain a discussion of why
>                      they are finalized.
> RFC Improvement #4:  Each working group may define more stringent acceptance
>                      criteria for RFCs.  -licensing doesn't care
>                      about including test plans, and -qa doesn't care about
>                      redistribution considerations.
> RFC Improvement #5:  An working grouup chair can cause an RFC to be
>                      withdrawn from condideration if it is off-topic
>                      or simply rehashing old issues.  This is to keep
>                      the brainstorm-to-proposal ratio close to zero when
>                      rampant brainstorming is not desired.

Excellent. Another one, which has informally been done sometimes:

RFC Improvement #2a: A link to the mail discussion archives should
                     be provided for each revision. 

And *possibly*: Somebody should be able to pre-scan them. Not for
content ("bad idea"), but to make sure they fit the format and also
don't rehash already open or previously covered issues. This is on the
dangerous edge of being facist though, and I'm not going to press the
issue if others dislike it (I'm not sure I like it myself).

> A modified RFC process should be in place for Perl6, where it fits.
> And it should not be a process that generates 150+submissions/month
> of wildly varying quality.

Agreed. That would make RFC's most painful, un-fun, and self-defeating.


Reply via email to