On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:20:33PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
> now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.


The RFC process that we started this summer is formally and
intentionally closed.  Your post, regardless of it's formatting,
naming or intent, will not be accepted into the RFC archive.

> =head1 TITLE
> The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.

First, Dan Sugalski has accurately summarized the nature of the
process, describing the current state of 'pause' we find ourselves in.

        http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00707.html

Second, recent discussion of Bryan Warnock's PDD 0 addresses the
issue of adaptability of the Perl 6 process.  The thread (from
this week) starts here:

        http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00712.html

> =head1 ABSTRACT
> 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.

Again, the RFC process is closed.  If you have ideas on how we can
improve the quality of documents yet-to-be-written (e.g. the PDD series)
or the process of obtaining such documents, then please focus on
work that remains to be done, not artifacts that don't need to be polished.


Reply via email to