On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:11:27PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
In preparation for the end-run of RFCing, how about we compile a list
of
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
At this point, I think this is too strong. My understanding of Larry's
intention is that we are now brainstorming. Brainstorming can not work
if folks will pre-filter their ideas. Part of the effect is a half-baked
idea on another member
At 05:30 PM 9/11/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Up until that point, it is wasted energy. At this point, without code
there is nothing locked down, no cost in changing. (Yes, even though
they are bits, changing software, changing architecture has major
costs.)
Don't forget that changing
I've an idea to cut down and weed out the huge number of RFCs we have.
Its written out below.
=pod
=head1 TITLE
Prototype implementations for RFCs.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4 21:11:56 EDT 2000
Version:1
Mailing
