Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 01:35:42AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
> >
> > Problem: Frozen RFCs are being updated.
>
> Solution #4: Slip the RFC status back to 'developing'.
>
> If someone updates a frozen RFC, its obviously developing again. The
> new RFC will require review. Then the maintainer can change the
> status back to frozen, or continue updating.
>
Some background would help--how is Larry being fed these RFCs? Is he being
sent a list of 'Frozen' RFCs, as they freeze. That would seem to make sense,
since then he can review the finished documents as soon as they're ready. If
so, then moving an RFC back to 'Developing' would mean letting Larry know
what's going on.
If these statuses aren't being used for any particular process, then I can't
see that it matters if an RFC is moved back to 'Developing'.
Personally, I'd rather that the -data RFCs were reviewed by Larry as soon as
they are frozen, since that's the point where we think the ideas are
developed well enough to be useful. If I were Larry, I'd find it pretty
frustrating if 'Frozen' RFCs were suddenly thawed and changed after I'd put
in the time to carefully review them. I guess it depends how much it
happens...
