On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:42:58PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default.
> > Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rejected', etc. have Real Meaning (tm),
> > there should be some review in place (by a WGC, principal, etc.). Statuses
> > like 'Withdrawn' and 'Superceded' should be accepted from PDD authors/teams.
>
> They don't need to start with "Developing" if they start with status
> "Experimental" or "Proposed"
The real issue is that there needs to be at least one default status that
the author can assign. With RFCs, Developing referred to the RFC, and
with PDDs, they refer to the underlying design/interface/implementation.
I think I misread Dan's re-interpretation of 'Developing'.
> > This is a community process. I'm uncomfortable leaving such decisions
> > to such a small number of people. How about nominating/electing a
>
> If PDDs start as "Proposed" without needing any approval does this remove
> the problem of a small group having a stranglehold?
No, because Dan has proposed a 'core team' of sorts, where any one
of the (at least) three team members cast a final vote (towards
'standard' or 'rejected').
Keep in mind that this isn't "Dan's Perl API" (or Nat's, or Larry's),
but "Our Perl API". I'd be more comfortable if at least two people
(from a group of >4) were involved in making any decision that
carries weight, or if there were a process of rotating the WGC as
necessary to avoid Pumpking Burnout (tm).
Z.
