Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
>> The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, ...
>
> I read this thread over the past couple of days. It's only today that,
> having thought about it, an objection occurred to me. I've no problem
> with people summariz
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, ...
I read this thread over the past couple of days. It's only today that,
having thought about it, an objection occurred to me. I've no problem
with people summarizing threads, but with this bit:
> The summaries
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Language Discussion Summaries
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> >>And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has
already
> >>gone through? Wouldn't it
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> >>And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
> >>gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
> >>presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
> You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the
> "finalized" RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to
> include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of
> what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs w
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
re-open the RFC process?
RFC's are proposals before the comments.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
> You suggest doing it in HTML. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it in
> POD, the standard documentation language for Perl?
For now, since it's a web site, let's stick to HTML. If somebody just way
prefers POD, contact me off list and we'll figure out the
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an i
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an idea,
writes a summary as
Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries
>> of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea
>> feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the ide
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries
> of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea
> feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the idea.
> Different opinions will be presented. The su
11 matches
Mail list logo
