Re: RFCs: two proposals for change

At 01:13 PM 8/3/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>We have two suggestions on the table:
>  1) Rename RFCs to PCRs. (Perl Change Requests).
>  2) Add a Status: metainfo field.
>
>I don't want votes on them yet, I want to make sure they're viable
>and sensible changes.  My thoughts:
>
>  1) I'm loathe to make unnecessary changes.  RFCs are requests for
>     comment.  I understand the confusion between the Internet RFCs
>     which are nominally standards, but these are Perl RFCs not
>     Internet RFCs.  Is this really such a big deal that we need to
>     invalidate everything we've already written that mentions "RFC"?

I think the confusion is with what Internet RFCs are, not what perl's RFCs 
are. Many of them are proposals, or working drafts. The big difference is 
that internet RFCs have code behind them (usually), while ours precede code 
writing.

(I waded through a *lot* of internet RFCs. A large majority of them aren't 
anything approaching a standard, and never have been)

>  2) Who is going to decide the status?  I picture a working group
>     chair saying "ok, time to nail this RFC down" and handing it
>     off to a working group.  When they return, is that the end of it?
>     I don't want, and I guess nobody wants, indefinite ongoing
>     blather about a topic.

If the WG chair can't get an RFC he/she/it/they are comfortable with, I say 
mark it as dead.

					Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[email protected]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk