<quote name="MZMcBride" date="2013-07-03" time="00:16:16 -0400">
In short, I don't see a measurable advantage to trashing a lot of currently incomplete RFCs, while the disadvantage to doing so seems quite clear.
I assume your above statement is mostly in reply to Tim's below statement:
Many RFCs are just "good ideas", often attracting no comment because there is no obvious criticism of the feature at the level of detail given by the proposer. This raises the question of whether an RFC is a feature request (like a Bugzilla enhancement) or a design document. If an RFC is a design document, then we might ask for more detail about feature implementation, and close the RFC if none is given. This may lead to the closure of RFCs which have no interest or support from developers. I'm inclined to think that this is an appropriate path to take, i.e. that RFCs should be design documents, but I am interested to hear comments on the subject.
If that assumption is true, then I don't think "closing" an RFC is "trashing" it. It doesn't have to be deleted, it can simply be listed in a "Closed" section on the RFC page. If the world changes in the future (as tends to happen) then it might make sense in the future even if it doesn't now, so it could be taken up at that point.
I'd also say that there's a "no place to discuss" issue that's been forming. If you try to use Gerrit for discussion, someone complains. If you try to use Bugzilla for discussion, someone else complains. The wiki is a refuge. I'd hate to see yet another person come along and say that it too can't be used for discussion.
Isn't that what any specific proposal's talk: page is for? And then the appropriate mailing list, of course? (probably wikitech-l, but maybe mobile or something if it could use some specialized comments before coming to wikitech-l).
Let me know if I misunderstood you in some way. But I think your concerns aren't likely to be a concern as I don't think deletion is on the list, only moving to a "not gonna happen right now" list.
Greg