We need to get our -data RFCs wrapped up. Nate said it rather well on -objects, so rather than rewrite what he said, I'll just repeat it here. I had planned to get RFCs frozen by this Wednesday, but that's looking overly optimistic, so let's aim to meet the same deadlines that -objects are working to (see the attached message): ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 12:28 PM Subject: Sublist -objects RFC wrap-up time > All- > > As Nat has mentioned on -meta, it's time to start wrapping things up. In > particular, I think the following "deadlines" should apply: > > 1. Any and all *new* RFC's should be submitted by Wednesday at the > absolute latest (preferably sooner). > > 2. All existing RFC's should have their final "developing" versions > posted by this Friday, Sep 22nd, at the latest. > > 3. All RFCs should be frozen by the following Wednesday, Sep 27th. > The hard deadline is Sep 30th for frozen RFCs. > > I will make no efforts to enforce these "deadlines", however please > consider that the sooner your frozen RFC is done, the sooner Larry will > be able to evaluate it. He's making his decision in about 3 weeks, so > the sooner the better. I will make a final dredge through this weekend > and will post a list of those RFCs still in need of updating Monday (but > you probably know who you are). > > When freezing your RFCs, please add a section up top called "NOTES ON > FREEZE", under the ABSTRACT section. In this section, please include a > brief little synopsis: > > a) what the general consensus was > > b) any specific highlights or issues to be resolved still > > c) any dependencies on other RFC's > > This section should be brief and honest. For an example, please see RFC > 164. > > The intent here is to clarify key points, and avoid giving Larry RFCs > that would have a top section that looked like this: > > =head1 NOTES ON FREEZE > > Everyone else hated this idea, but I really like it, so > screw everybody, I'm freezing it anyways. > > If your idea was disliked overall, be honest with yourself and others. > I've retracted 3 of mine personally already because they ended up being > real stinkers, or superceded by better ideas. If you retract your idea, > an optional "NOTES ON RETRACTION" section would be nice, since it could > help ideas from being brought up again in the future. > > For an example of this, please see RFC 175. > > Final words: Let's try to avoid flooding the list with last-minute RFCs. > Let's try to get the main ones out there that could affect the > fundamental shape of the language. Other stuff can be added as we see > fit later in Perl 6.0.1, 6.0.2, etc. > > And if you have a problem with an existing RFC, please don't submit a > counter-RFC as your first course of action. Please try first > contributing to existing discussions and reaching consensus, since that > has worked quite effectively so far. > > Your sublist footstool, > Nate > >
