On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Nathan Larson <nathanlarson3...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > (snip) > > I actually like the formalism a bit - since it at least makes sure > > that they don't rot. BDFLs are good. > > > > > Does it keep them from rotting? It looks like of the 60 RFCs in draft or in > discussion, 24 were last updated before 2013. > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Leucosticte/RFCs_sorted_by_%22updated%22_date > Weren't most of the RFCs you're talking about started before the new process was implemented? There's a lot of cleanup work to be done, and so far it seems like decent progress has been made. I agree we could be more aggressive about closing RFCs that are long stale, but it's hard to fault an architectural process that replaces what amounted to a vacuum. It's not like RFCs were all tidy and making progress before any new process was announced. Steven _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
