Setting up RFC

Hi, About a month ago there was a discussion on the Engine 2 mailing list, about a possible RFC-proces for the more imporant PHP-issues. In the end, there was some consensus that it would be good if such a system exists. I'm simply writing to get some comments, to hear what the general opinion is. If that is not negative, I think it should be tried to set it up. About the details, there needs to be discussion of course, but it would be more efficient to discuss those things after a proposal has been made, in stead of construct such a proposal by discussion. Joey Smith and Zak Great supported the idea on the list, but the discussion went dead. Below I quote some of their mails. Regards, Jeroen Joey Smith wrote: > Actually, I felt that the Perl 6 design process had a fairly good idea > that was poorly implemented...that of RFC's. Anyone who wants to sponsor > a feature compiles an RFC on it, and is resposible for keeping track of > the discussion on it, and occasionally rolling the comments back into a > new revision of the RFC. > > What do you guys think of something like this? We could even mark > certain RFC's as "Dead for now", or something like, so that we can kill > threads such as {}, and anyone who doubts the "deadness" of the thread > can check the status of the RFC before commenting. > > One potential risk I see with this approach: Someone sponsors a certain > RFC, goes through much time and trouble to track and merge discussion, > only to have it "killed" somewhere down the road by the others. This > could possibly lead to the kinds of flare-ups that occur from > time-to-time on php-dev... Zak wrote: > That sounds like a very good idea. We spend a good deal of time going > around. > The RFC process should have a series of significant benefits: > > a.) Less digging through old mail to figure out what was said > > b.) The sponsor must be serious > > c.) The process of writing an RFC will encourage the sponsor to consider the > feature more carefully > > d.) The RFCs will provide a form that can easily be archived. > > --zak Zak wrote again: > Has anyone else had a chance to think about this proposal? > > I think that it is a solid idea. > > As Joey points out, it might help prevent the pointless go-rounds > that have been occurring with this discussion *and* would give us a > clear set of documents to refer to in the future. > > --zak