Re: New list charters

Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> How big (or small) should the crux of the RFC be?

I have no idea.  I'm nervous of change control, because that adds
complexity where it may not be needed.  But I see how folks might
want a quick redux on the changes.

Perhaps changed RFCs need to have a CHANGES section that describes
the changes between the last version and this one.  Not an entire
change history, which is pointless given mail archives.  I'm merely
thinking of a brief summary of what's different.  Something on the
order of:

  more examples, added possible threading implementation, discussed
  interaction with formats.

That way an observer wants to keep up but not participate in the day
to day blab fest can find out which sections they need to read.

Comments?

Nat