On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > As I stated in the original post, there is no reason *not* to keep the
> > process open.
>
> In an attempt to keep my previous message concise, I seem to have
> neglected a few key points:
>
> 1) The RFC was a free-for-all brainstorming process. Intentionally.
right, and your point is that brainstorming should cease(?)
>
> 2) RFCs were not intended to be the basis for designing the language
> or describing/creating the implementation. They were intended to
> collect comments on the aspects of Perl5 that should/could be fixed
> in Perl6, or cool new features that cannot be reasonably added into
> Perl5 but could be integrated into Perl6.
yeah, and there are not nearly enough of these 'features', 'comments', 'what
have you' available. There is a *lot more to say* in this type of forum.
> 3) The RFC process was designed to be a limited call for ideas for Larry
> to consider in a language design. The deadline was integral to the
> process, and decided before RFC collection began.
right.. and like I said, I don't understand the 'limited' part. Like I said,
there are a bunch of ideas that are not formally written down that it would
be criminal to ignore.
What better way of keeping track of them than an RFC?
> > The RFC's would be a very good tool to sift discussions, let ?
> > ideas flow, and not to revisit discussions in the future.
>
> 4) The RFCs have demonstrated that they are a very poor tool for
> starting and continuing a productive, forward moving discussion.
> Many of these issues are addressed in PDD 0 and Dan's thoughts
> on the PDD process.
sorry, but this is a bunch of BS. They are poor from the point of
*implementation* but they are far from poor from the point of the brainstorming.
There is an *ongoing need* for this type of brainstorming, something that
mailing lists by themselves cannot tackle, and something that the PDD's should
*not* tackle.
PDD's can be kept free of cruft if there is this separate step of
'brainstorming'. And RFC's are a very good starting point for PDD's.
> > [...] Dan Sugalski replied that the RFC
> > process *was* going to be ongoing, so I was willing to have it hit the next
> > 'cutoff'.
>
> The formal (more-formal-than-p5p) document gathering process will
> be ongoing. That is one reason (of many) why the PDD series is
Right, but do you really want every off-the-cuff discussion/idea to make it
into PDD? Or do you want to have a selection/discussion process to decide which
RFCs should make it into PDD.
> emphatically not a series of RFCs. We made mistakes with the RFC
> process and don't want to repeat them.
But you are making a fundamental mistake if PDDs are shoehorned to fit the
entire design process. RFC's should be messy, outspoken, and they should cover
the entire spectrum of what perl is about. They should then be drilled *down*
into PDDs.
> There's nothing stopping you, but the RFC archive is closed and
> will likely not be reopened (save for some minor details in the
> queue). It's primary value is in cataloging a series of ideas of
> what Perl could or should become.
Exactly... and your point is that 'the number of things that perl6 which Perl
could or should become' is now fixed in stone?
> > So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
>
> The deadline was not artificial. It was by design.
yes. It was 'artificial' by design. It was artificially imposed. And it was
wrongfully imposed. I can see the value of having an initial 'cutoff', and then
having cutoffs going on forward, but to say *whoa nelly* the only forum now
for off the cuff discussion is via thread is just wrong.
We've tried that before; it was called perl5-porters. It led to the same idea
over and over again because there was no formal way of cataloging good ideas
and bad ideas.
And before you say 'this is PDD', think of exactly how badly this would dilute
the PDDs. PDDs would contain everything from undigested ideas to meticulously
crafted ones. It would be a mess.
Or in other words, tell you what - I'll write up my 30 ideas, and I will call
them PDDs.
> No, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Of course there is. RFCs might be 60% crap (or even 70-80%) but that leaves
some very good implementable ideas. There is value in putting down and
cataloging brainstorms.
> If you want to contribute, patch bleadperl, or make a contribution
> on what we're doing today.
Ok, you are on. I'll write up my 30 ideas, and you'll accept them as PDDs. Ok?
Ed
