Re: Deadline for all RFCs? If so, why?
Adam Turoff wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:17PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > I am curious if this applies to any Working Groups besides >perl6-language. > >I don't see why not. We're nearing the 300 RFC mark, and most of >the RFCs have yet to make it to v2. I don't think encouaging >hit-and-run RFC submission was the intended goal, and I do think >we want to draw these discussions to a close. I think that different discussions are heading at different rates. > > As chair of the Licensing Working Group, I am a bit concerned that we > > haven't developed enough possible licensing proposals. I am happy to >hustle > > everyone to write more RFCs and get proposals on the table, but the >deadline > > does seem a bit arbitrary for anything but the language design itself. > >The Perl6 design process does not end on Oct 1, nor does it end on Oct 15. The deadline for licensing had been (I thought) Oct 13. This is a significant shift. >I feel confident that we'll revisit what happened over the first >two+ months of brainstorming and improve upon it. That may mean >semi-permanent working groups, and stronger deadline enforcement >for temporary working groups. Moving it up two weeks is definitely stronger deadline enforcement! >Licensing is one of those areas that won't be solved by Oct 1, but >it's worthwhile to summarize the discussions -licensing has had over >the past few weeks, so we don't spend the next few months rehashing >pro-/anti-GPL holy wars. Actually the GPL holy wars have been a rather small part of the discussion. What this means is that I need to try to get time tonight to submit my proposed rewrite of the Artistic License. (I do not want to publically discuss the shape of the current one, it is not good.) [...] Thanks for the heads up. Ben _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Deadline for all RFCs? If so, why?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:17PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > I am curious if this applies to any Working Groups besides perl6-language. I don't see why not. We're nearing the 300 RFC mark, and most of the RFCs have yet to make it to v2. I don't think encouaging hit-and-run RFC submission was the intended goal, and I do think we want to draw these discussions to a close. > As chair of the Licensing Working Group, I am a bit concerned that we > haven't developed enough possible licensing proposals. I am happy to hustle > everyone to write more RFCs and get proposals on the table, but the deadline > does seem a bit arbitrary for anything but the language design itself. The Perl6 design process does not end on Oct 1, nor does it end on Oct 15. I feel confident that we'll revisit what happened over the first two+ months of brainstorming and improve upon it. That may mean semi-permanent working groups, and stronger deadline enforcement for temporary working groups. Licensing is one of those areas that won't be solved by Oct 1, but it's worthwhile to summarize the discussions -licensing has had over the past few weeks, so we don't spend the next few months rehashing pro-/anti-GPL holy wars. RFCs are also a library of old arguments that we don't want to get in the way of developing Perl6, not just recommendations for Larry to consider lazy evaluation and currying. > And, as for internals, it seems like that group will just get started when > the language freezes, so there doesn't seem any reason to freeze > internals-RFCs by the deadline, either. If that's the case, then there was no point in having an RFC process for -internals. Some of the internals issues have impacts on language design, though, as do some of the issues raised on -stdlib, etc. Z.
