At 04:43 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > >>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > >> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or
> will there
> > >> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> > >>
> > >>I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
> > >
> > >I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> > >actually want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the
> RFCs
> > >for 'external' things,...
> >
> > I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from
> > the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original
> > deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or
> > cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that:
> >
> > New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the
> difference);
> >
> > Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far
> Larry's
> > got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with
> > something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People
> > should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head
> off on
> > some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is
> > enough.
>
>Strongly agreed.
That works for me--we could increment the thousands number by one each time
we open things up for a new RFC period. Once we have a working perl 6 of
some sort we can kick in with RFC 1000, and once perl 6.1 is done we can go
with 2000, and so on.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
