On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 08:50:24AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > It seems to me that the perl6-internals, perl6-qa, and perl6-licenses groups
> > should be able to produce additional RFCs after this. Of course, the
> > Language will be frozen, but these three groups may need to remain fluid
> > after the 14 October 2000 annoucement.
>
> I think perl6-licenses should start to move towards a decision after
> the 14th. Find something that there's a rough consensus for, write up
> the pro-s and con-s, then give it to Larry.
What about pending -licenses RFCs? Bradley has made a very good
point that -licenses (and -qa?) aren't directly impacted by the
language design and should be immune from the moritorium.
Some of the -licenses RFCs could be considered "brainstorming".
Most are better categorized as complete proposals for action
and discussion.
> I think -qa should continue. I don't know about RFCs, though.
I see value in the RFC process. It generates more coherent discussion
than when someone walks into a thread and says:
You're all wrong. Perl should use the QPL.
and promptly leaves, leaving an unproductive flamewar in his wake.
I'm also in favor of having more stringent acceptance criteria on
a per-group basis. For example, -qa may have a required test
plan section, and -licenses may have a required redistribution
section. These criteria could be drafted in a manner to reduce
or eliminate pie-in-the-sky brainstorming RFCs for each group.
> I'm still thinking about how best to encode the -qa group's output.
Numbering each block of RFCs separately by working group would be
one easy way of splitting brainstorming from licensing discussions
(RFC #QA-1, etc.).
Z.
