On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:42:52AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> 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.
> Ed,
> 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.


You haven't been following the discussion, have you? Did you read the RFC? 

As I stated in the original post, there is no reason *not* to keep the 
process open.  The RFC's would be a very good tool to sift discussions, let 
ideas flow, and not to revisit discussions in the future.

And as I stated in my original message, I was perfectly happy for my RFC to 
not make it into current 'cutoff'. Dan Sugalski replied that the RFC 
process *was* going to be ongoing, so I was willing to have it hit the next

Hell, I was going to make an RFC searcher, commentor, and so forth that could
be re-used for PPD. I have no interest in making such an engine if PPD only 
exists, because I think that PPD by itself is clearly insufficient to handle
the needs of the perl community.

So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point? Do you 
really think that RFC's as they stand equal all the large issues that are going
to be faced with perl6? I read all of the RFC's and there are thirty large gaps
that I count and that should be filled.

I'm sorry, but this pisses me off. You've got to realize that for a lot of us,
our time is intermittent and our commitment can only be sporadic. I, for one,
was busy in transitioning to another state when the whole perl6 design thing
happened last year. So hell - I plan on giving my contribution now. What's 
better - that, or twiddling our thumbs?


Reply via email to