At 04:12 PM 8/17/00 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >I agree. I think the trend should be to establish some permanent
> >sublists, which we're informally leaning towards already. Something
> >like:
> >
> > -io = ALL I/O issues, like open/socket/filehandles
> > -subs = ALL sub/method/func issues, like lvalue subs
> > -strict = ALL lexical/global variable scoping issues
> > -objects = ALL OO and module issues
> > -flow = ALL flow/threading issues
> > -errors = ALL error handling issues
> > -datetime = ALL date/time/etc issue
>
>Yup, this works for me.
>
>Ask, can you change the deadlines on these lists to be "as long as it
>takes" or similar?
Sorry I didn't chime in earlier, but I would like to say that I prefer
published deadlines. Reason: people will talk for as long as you give
'em. However long a meeting is scheduled for, that's how long it will
take. We're already reaching the point of diminishing returns in several
discussions IMHO; if we let 'em drag on forever they may turn ugly.
Besides, the -internals folk are waiting to see what they need to get going
on. And I would think we'd want a time when we knew Larry could get going
on the RFCs without wondering whether something else was going to romp out
of the starting gate.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
