> > RFC 362
> > -------
> ...
> > The RFC process should not have had an artificial deadline; it should be an
> > adaptive process that should last the entire development cycle of perl6 and
> > perhaps after.
> Should is a very dangerous word.

its a very useful word too sometimes... ;-)

>         RFC 363 - Anyone posting a new RFC should have read all of the 
>                   existing RFCs first.
> Not just "relevant"?

No, not just relevant. I think it should be rite of passage, a way for people
to educate themselves on what's there and what's not. Sort of like reading the

> >         RFC 364 - There should be a web interface for people to interactively
> >                   comment on RFCs.
> >         RFC 365 - There should be a rating system for RFCs.
> >         RFC 366 - There should be a culling system for RFCs, a way to
> >                   distinguish quickly between withdrawn RFCs and RFCs in
> >                   process.
> These are nice daydreams.  Please feel free to go ahead with these projects.
> Do you need a cgi-enabled web server?  I can see what I can do towards providing
> you one.

yeah, ok, I'd be willing to do this (in lieu of writing RFCs), as long as the 
RFC issue was definitely a permanent/semi-permanent feature of the language. 
I'm assuming that most of this GUI could be translated over to PDD's too, and 
perhaps PCR's.

And yeah it would be nice to have access to an 'official' CGI-enabled web 
server, after something was working.


Reply via email to