Re: Handling of withdrawn RFCs

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara <ronabop@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? Snip_> >> An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling >> purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, >> of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of >> "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". >> Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, >> new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important >> things, here!", and continue the loop... Snip_> > This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment > relevant? The relevance is in ways to "abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC". > Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can > do so using their own RFC - Creating a new RFC has a higher barrier to entry, requiring additional effort. > or, for that matter, without an RFC. I would suggest that random email trolling does not have the same audience, impact, or formal trappings of a public RFC process. -Ronabop