On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Nathan Larson <nathanlarson3141(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
(snip)
I actually like the formalism a bit - since it at least makes sure
that they don't rot. BDFLs are good.
Does it keep them from rotting? It looks like of the 60 RFCs in draft or in
discussion, 24 were last updated before 2013.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Leucosticte/RFCs_sorted_by_%22updated%2…
Weren't most of the RFCs you're talking about started before the new
process was implemented? There's a lot of cleanup work to be done, and so
far it seems like decent progress has been made. I agree we could be more
aggressive about closing RFCs that are long stale, but it's hard to fault
an architectural process that replaces what amounted to a vacuum. It's not
like RFCs were all tidy and making progress before any new process was
announced.
Steven