Re: Guidelines for internals proposals and documentation

On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the principals (i.e. Me, Nat, or 
> Larry, or our replacements) can mark a PDD as developing, standard, or 
> superceded.

This doesn't sound right.

All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default.
Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rejected', etc. have Real Meaning (tm),
there should be some review in place (by a WGC, principal, etc.).  Statuses
like 'Withdrawn' and 'Superceded' should be accepted from PDD authors/teams.

The RFC process accidentally required single-authorship for all RFCs.
We should allow RFCs to be maintained by a group of collaborating
authors (without forcing them to start a mailing list first).  Any of
these authors should be able to make updates and update the status
as appropriate (e.g. Developing, Withdrawn, Superceded).

This is a community process.  I'm uncomfortable leaving such decisions
to such a small number of people.  How about nominating/electing a 
core team that will be responsible for the API design, whereby a vote
of 3/10 is needed to reject a PDD and a vote of 5/10 is needed to accept
a PDD?  (The numbers 3, 5 and 10 are arbitrary, and used to demonstrate
that this doesn't need to degenerate into review by committee.)

Z.