Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:18:41AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Piers Cawley writes:
> > > The idea here is to allow people to get ideas on the lists in a rough
> > > form where they can get some initial comments (which may blow the
> > > 'real' RFC out of the water...). There should be some very strict
> > > rules about how soon the 'real' RFC arrives though.
> >
> > Why do you need to do this? Just post with a subject line like:
> >
> > IDEA: All Perl keywords should be in UPPER CASE
> >
> > and watch the shooting begin. Anything that survives this phase
> > can be RFCed.
>
> If the issue is trying to get ideas fleshed out in the next week,
> adding yet more structure (e.g. proto rfc) would keep those ideas
> from being posted.
>
> The RFC format is intended to impose as little format and structure
> as necessary to the author, while presenting an appropriate amount of
> format and structure to the reader.
>
> Once you've got a description, the next things to do are summarize
> it in an =head1 ABSTRACT, add in some thoughts on migration issues
> and implementation details, and finally, references to other RFCs,
> man pages or mail messages (so people have an idea where you're
> coming from). (Don't forget the title and version sections, which
> should be quite easy.)
>
> That *shouldn't* be hard. If you're getting hung up on details like
> =over 4, =item, L<> and C<>, then leave them out.
No, I'm getting hung up on the fact that it'll take a bunch of time to
flesh out the RFCs beyond a simple TITLE and ABSTRACT and I want to
get the idea on the table before the deadline.
--
Piers
