[Moving this discussion to -meta. See Reply-To.]
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:14:39PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > I disagree. The RFC process is for generating ideas, not making decisions,
> > nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> > that's why others can (or could) submit RFCs that contradict it, if they
> > want to. The author is no more obliged to include opposing opinions in
>
> Not obliged, no. But not recording opposing views is like sticking
> fingers in your ears and loudly chanting 'la la la la, my proposal
> is good, pure and uncontested, la la la, la la la...'
RFC Improvement #1: All updated RFCs must contain a CHANGES section.
RFC Improvement #2: All updated RFCs must contain a synopsis of
relevant discussion, including opposing views.
RFC Improvement #3: All final RFCs must contain a discussion of why
they are finalized.
RFC Improvement #4: Each working group may define more stringent acceptance
criteria for RFCs. -licensing doesn't care
about including test plans, and -qa doesn't care about
redistribution considerations.
RFC Improvement #5: An working grouup chair can cause an RFC to be
withdrawn from condideration if it is off-topic
or simply rehashing old issues. This is to keep
the brainstorm-to-proposal ratio close to zero when
rampant brainstorming is not desired.
Any others? There are bugs in the RFC process. Now is the time to
fix them.
A modified RFC process should be in place for Perl6, where it fits.
And it should not be a process that generates 150+submissions/month
of wildly varying quality.
Z.
