At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -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?
>
>I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
>actually want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs
>for 'external' things,...
I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from
the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original
deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or
cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that:
New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the difference);
Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far Larry's
got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with
something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People
should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off on
some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is
enough.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
