Re: RFCs: two proposals for change

On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 01:13:45PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>  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"?

No.  Leave RFC as is.  It makes sense.

>  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?

Yes.  The RFC-champion could petition for more time, but it's up to
the WG-chair to decide if it's worth it. (I bet there won't be many of
these)  Either way we present Larry with a bunch of things we would
like to see in perl 6, a bunch of things we wouldn't like to see in
perl 6 and a bunch of things that we couldn't make up our minds on so
he'll have to make up our minds for us. :-)

-Scott
-- 
Jonathan Scott Duff
[email protected]