On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> 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.
Strongly agreed.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
