> John Porter wrote:
>> RFCs like "330: Global dynamic variables should remain the
>> default" should not need to be written!  (No disrespect to you,
>> Nate.)
> None taken; I actually agree. Unfortunately, I thought that -strict did
> nowhere near enough analysis of scoping issues besides the initial
> strict vs. no strict flamewars. I was actually trying to spark new
> debate with that RFC, but nobody was interested. Too bad.
> And this is no disrespect to J. David, in turn, who authored a couple
> other -strict RFC's. Both he and I discussed stuff offline and were
> upset by the seeming lack of interest. I suspect that the sublist
> actually did a disservice here; this might have been an instance where
> posting it to the main list would have been better.

  Yes, I think most of the issues were discussed before the mailing
list even existed, and then we had two weeks of silence, followed by
some discussion at the last minute no one expected caused by one of
the WG chairs who just wanted to cause trouble (that'd be me).

> Which leads to a question: Do we have too many sublists? Or too few? Or
> is it just right? I think having -objects, -subs, -regex, and -data have
> all been very helpful. However, I wonder if the others couldn't be
> consolidated? Perhaps -io and -flow should become one? Perhaps -errors
> and -strict should just be discarded? Input?
> -Nate

  My take is that I believe the list organization is imbalanced in
some areas; some things that don't need their own list have one, and
some things need a list and are stuck on the main list.  Part of the
problem has been what skud and others observed early on; the list
formation for what was a big issue for a couple of days usually
occurred toward the end of those couple of days.  I'm not sure what
anyone could have done to make things different, but I do think that
some important subgroups for the implementation process should be
identified very early on (like while we're waiting for Larry).

  -strict should be gone now, though I think it's still live.  I
presume there are similar groups that have fulfilled their purposes
and dried up now, too.  (And, one last time, not to sound like I'm
beating a dead horse or anything, but I would've preferred it be
called -scope.)


Reply via email to