Re: About IDNA and similar issues...

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 19:57:03 +0200, David Rech <david.rech@metaminds.de> wrote: > Justin Patrin wrote: > > > > Makes sense to me. If we do use the draft proposals for this (and why > > not, it makes sense), then we should encourage developers to create a > > draft when they start on a project, or even when they have an idea for > > one. Perhaps if a person has an idea and no time, they could hand the > > idea off to another interested party? > > > > How long does a draft have before it will "time out"? > > What about 14 days, for providing examples and/or first sources (pseudo > code, proof of concept or the like) for developers which volunteer to > provide code their self, and a 30-day "discussion and decission" phase > for those people just wanted to contribute ideas and i.e. basic concepts > for a package to look whether there's someone "hunting" for the same thing. > > If that initial phase elapses, the draft could be dropped. Maybe a > "history" in a special section on the PEAR website would be very usefull > for those people finding each other after a longer period of time. > > So we'd have no "ghost" drafts or proposals, "older" ideas are not > lost > and developers are able to join each other to merge their efforts even > after weeks and months. > All sounds good to me. Shall we Proposal/RFC this (possibly use a wiki such as for the Exception RFC) or do we need more discussion? -- DB_DataObject_FormBuilder - The database at your fingertips http://pear.php.net/package/DB_DataObject_FormBuilder paperCrane --Justin Patrin--