On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Bryan C. Warnock writes: > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there > > be a new one (perl-pdd)? > > I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan? How about two lists? I still think that there should be a two-tiered process. I think its a mistake to have a 'one size fits all' process. See my other post on this. Ed
- State of PDD 0 Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: State of PDD 0 Simon Cozens
- Re: State of PDD 0 Dan Sugalski
- Re: State of PDD 0 Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: State of PDD 0 Dan Sugalski
- Re: State of PDD 0 Nathan Torkington
- Re: State of PDD 0 Edward Peschko
- Re: State of PDD 0 Dan Sugalski
- Re: State of PDD 0 Ask Bjoern Hansen
- Re: State of PDD 0 Dan Sugalski
- Re: State of PDD 0 Adam Turoff
- Re: State of PDD 0 Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: State of PDD 0 Adam Turoff
- Re: State of PDD 0 Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: State of PDD 0 Simon Cozens
- Re: State of PDD 0 Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: State of PDD 0 Ask Bjoern Hansen