Sounds like a job for a bot!
(couldn't resist)
-- Gregor
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
02/04/2003 11:38 AM
Please respond to duff
To: Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: "Miko O'Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Language Discussion Summaries
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> >>And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has
already
> >>gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
> >>presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
> >>re-open the RFC process?
> >
> >
> > RFC's are proposals before the comments. The summaries are, well,
> > summaries of the comments. My main concern is that Larry, Damian, et
al,
> > are likely to have a hard time reading through all the comments in the
> > language list (Damian isn't even in the list right now), so the
summaries
> > are a way of letting them cut to the chase on the discussion of each
idea.
>
> You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the
> "finalized" RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to
> include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of
> what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs weren't written until after
> the idea had been discussed.
Buddha Buck's comments aside, I think thread-summaries would be a
useful thing. But probably only if we continue to have these long
seemingly endless threads. Better might be someone who's there to
shout "LET'S WRAP IT UP PEOPLE!" every now and then. And maybe that
someone is Miko :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
