On Tuesday 20 February 2001 21:45, Adam Turoff wrote:
> PDDs, like the RFCs that preceded them, will need to serve multiple
> purposes. One of them will be to catalog (and *name*) ideas that
> keep coming up, including the bad ideas (like the |||= operator)
> that we're tired of discussing. I don't think anyone expects each
> of N PDDs to get us 1/Nth closer to Perl6.
Except it may be possible to keep the RFC structure for the "we're NOT"
historical section. I would much rather have a clean section on "This Is
Perl" than to wade through N + X documents just to glean the N clues that
I'm after.
>
> Some PDDs, especially Informational and possibly Experimental,
> might need to precede knowledgeable discussion. If so, then
> Standards-track need to have the requirement that they summarize
> some amount of discussion on the list(s), and that requirement is
> enforcable (i.e., no PDDs out of left field).
Well, we could move to a sponsorship-type model. Since you need a WG Chair
to move it past proposal stage, simply make that a requirement for that
stage too. In order to submit a Standards-track Proposal, you need a WG
Chair, etc, to sponsor it.
That would also allow several people to put together differing proposals
for the times that we don't have prior discussion. Dan, for instance,
could call for proposals for locality handling, and several folks could
write their own comprehensive (ie, no hand-waving "and {poof} magic
happens") PDD of how to implement it. Only one need be accepted, the
others can be archived with all the other Proposals for historical purposes
- that was the whole point in not numbering Proposals in the first place.
But that seems to be merging again with the RFC process - so maybe not.
Of course, if we put too much structure in place, no one will use it, and
we'll either see more non-experimental Experimental PDDs, or no PDDs at all.
>
> That's a good idea, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's the
> only one, the fairest one or the most practical one.
I'm all ears. Er... eyes.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
