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.