Hi everyone,

It would be extremely useful to have summaries for all RFC clusters[1] similar to the one I provided yesterday[2] for HTML templating. No, I'm not volunteering :-)

As Diederik mentioned, we're going to have to figure out some way of prioritizing all of the RFC clusters in advance of the Architecture Summit. One way I believe we should gauge interest in these things is by whether or not someone has taken the time to write the summary, and what level of on-list response that summary gets. It's certainly not the sole means or even most important, but it's indicative of whether or not sufficient effort has been put into the online conversation.

In general, the Architecture Summit is not meant as a replacement for mailing list conversation. It's meant as a means of accelerating conversations that are already happening on list, but need more than email conversation to push them more quickly to resolution. Therefore, it makes sense to prioritize the RFC clusters that are being talked about.

Guidelines for writing these: be fair and reasonably generous to the authors of the RFCs. We're not shooting for encyclopedic NPOV, so it's ok and perhaps even helpful to state what you believe the various viewpoints are.

It may also be the case that we got the organization wrong, and that a cluster of RFCs don't actually belong together as a cluster. If that's the case, it would be good to highlight as part of going through these.

Anyone willing to help out with writing summaries?

Rob

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_Summit_2014/RFC_Clusters [2] "RFC cluster summary: HTML templating": http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/74544