On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the > best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far. > > Anyone have better suggestions? I don't know that this is _better_, but...perhaps we could have the lists that you suggest, but also have separate, publicly postable, lists where anyone could comment. If one person from the design committee would be willing to read these public lists and interact with the people there, saying "that's a good idea, we'll use it" or (probably more common) "we'd like to do that, but we can't for reasons XYZ," that would go a long way towards making the community feel invovled. Perhaps this duty could rotate, so that various design-committee voices would be heard on the outside. Dave
- Re: Continued RFC process Uri Guttman
- Re: Continued RFC process Nicholas Clark
- Re: Continued RFC process Daniel Chetlin
- Re: Continued RFC process Dan Sugalski
- Re: Continued RFC process Russ Allbery
- Re: Continued RFC process Dan Sugalski
- Re: Continued RFC process Nathan Wiger
- Re: Continued RFC process Will Coleda - IMG
- RE: Continued RFC process Bryan C . Warnock
- RE: Continued RFC process Dan Sugalski
- RE: Continued RFC process Dave Storrs
- RE: Continued RFC process David Grove
- RE: Continued RFC process Andy Dougherty
- RE: Continued RFC process Ask Bjoern Hansen
- Re: Continued RFC process J. David Blackstone
- Re: Continued RFC process John Porter
- Re: Continued RFC process Bart Lateur
- Re: Continued RFC process J. David Blackstone
- Re: Continued RFC process Dan Sugalski
- Re: Continued RFC process Stephen Zander
- Re: Continued RFC process Dan Sugalski