On Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:19 PM, Nathan Wiger [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
wrote:
> 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                      withdrawn from condideration if it is off-topic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.
>
> -Nate

As long as the word "relevant" is prevalent in #2, this makes sense. 
Referencing "nonsense", whose definition should be thoughtfully determined by 
the individual (not just non-opposing views), would make the whole revision 
irrelevant.



Reply via email to