On 26-May-26 09:53, Jay Daley wrote:
On 23 May 2026, at 09:07, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23-May-26 01:23, Salz, Rich wrote:
*
I'd say "most streams will mostly follow the default".
There is at least one place where there is no default:
10. Dispute> Disputes about authorship, editorship, contributors and
acknowledgements will not be settled by the RPC and must be resolved
by the relevant RFC stream according to its own procedures.
True, and I really think we shouldn't burden the RPC with that sort of issue.
How do you propose disputes are handled regarding RFCs published before streams
were introduced?
Hmm. I wonder how they are handled today? I suggest we simply make them out of
scope
for this draft. I was implicitly assuming that.
Personal opinion: I'd like there to be a "claim" procedure so the existing
streams could
claim older RFCs, to reduce the amount of Legacy RFCs. But that would have a
lot of
ramifications and corner-cases, so it's definitely future work if it ever gets
done.
Brian
Jay
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
