I thought the WG sublists creation was a recursive definition.
I can see a discussion with the chair(uplevel) for guidance, but the
working groups should be left to their own devices. They should only
be responsible to return their final document. Otherwise treat it
as a black box.
<chaim>
>>>>> "s" == skud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
s> On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:34:07PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>>
>> that is a major reason why i want to move all of those rfc's under the
>> flow one so we can properly address that low level design and language
>> changes to support them all. i should have my draft rfc done later
>> tonight and will post it. it has some missing sections you can fill in
>> like on co-routines and completions.
s> uri, I fear you may be suffering from a bit of confusion wrt the current
s> state of sublists.
s> There is currently no such thing as a sub-sublist. perl6-language-flow
s> would not independently spawn perl6-language-flow-switch etc. Instead,
s> the chair of -flow could contact me and suggest a new sublist such as
s> perl6-language-switch, which would get its own chair and charter
s> independently of -flow.
s> I admit this isn't really very different in practical terms, but at
s> least it means that sublists have some consistentcy in their charters
s> and timelines, and that they all report back to the same place
s> (-language).
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
