Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

Hi Dan, > RFC Process > ? I’d like the language to match. For stuff that has been implemented, I like Implemented, but Completed is also fine. Do we have a way to identify proposals for things that are intended to be on

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

@Udo I like both of your suggestions. Most of the proposals that I put in "Dropped" still seemed like good ideas, perhaps even things we'd already agreed to on the mailing list, but hadn't seen any recent development. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and rename Active->Completed and Dropped->Iceb

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

@Dan, Thank you for your first attempt at this. Maybe we should be a rename "Active" to "Completed". "Active" to me means that we are currently working on them, rather having completed them. I don't view these proposals as features that can be toggled on/off (or active/inactive). Also, I di

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

This is great! Thanks! - Aaron > On Jul 12, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > > Thanks, Dan! > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 1:35 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > >> Thanks for taking the initiative Dan! >> >>> On Jul 12, 2019, at 12:57 PM, Dan Smith wrote: >>> >>> Following up on this, I t

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

Thanks, Dan! On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 1:35 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > Thanks for taking the initiative Dan! > > > On Jul 12, 2019, at 12:57 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > > > Following up on this, I took a stab at organizing our old proposals into > > the buckets on the wiki. We now have: > > > > Under D

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

Thanks for taking the initiative Dan! > On Jul 12, 2019, at 12:57 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > Following up on this, I took a stab at organizing our old proposals into > the buckets on the wiki. We now have: > > Under Discussion - Draft and In Discussion proposals > In Development - proposals under

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

Following up on this, I took a stab at organizing our old proposals into the buckets on the wiki. We now have: Under Discussion - Draft and In Discussion proposals In Development - proposals under active development Active - Proposals that are completely implemented Dropped - Proposals that were n

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

Given discussion here and previous discussion on the PR, I consider this proposal approved and updated its state accordingly. I also incorporated Dan's suggestion of moving deprecated proposals and added a reference to the new process at the top of the Project Proposals and Specifications page

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

> > Will moving the page around on the wiki result in dead links to the draft > version? > No. If you use the share button in the wiki, you get a permanent link to the page. Even if you just copy the URL from the address bar it doesn't include the folder the page is in. -Dan

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

+1 looks good to me - Aaron On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 2019, at 3:42 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > > >> > >> Just to make sure I got this 100% right, you mean the work related as > part > >> of the proposal would be under development, correct? > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

> On Jun 24, 2019, at 3:42 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > >> >> Just to make sure I got this 100% right, you mean the work related as part >> of the proposal would be under development, correct? > > > Yes! And I like your suggestion to just create a couple of buckets on the > wiki, rather than one

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

> > Just to make sure I got this 100% right, you mean the work related as part > of the proposal would be under development, correct? Yes! And I like your suggestion to just create a couple of buckets on the wiki, rather than one for each state. -Dan On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:37 PM Alexander Mu

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

> it might be nice to have separate subdirectories on the wiki for the different proposal states, to easily see what state the proposals are in. I think that's useful. I wonder if it would make sense though to bucket some of these. Maybe we could make do with just a "current" and "old" directory.

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

+1 Looks good to me! A couple of minor thoughts - it might be nice to have separate subdirectories on the wiki for the different proposal states, to easily see what state the proposals are in. One thing that isn't visible in these states - is the proposal actively under development? It might be

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

Having the RFC discussion in a pull request was by far the most controversial aspect of this proposal. Because we were unable to come to an agreement, we should stick with the smallest change to what we are doing already. Therefore I moved the proposal to the wiki where all existing proposals are.

[DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

Hi everyone, I am proposing a new process that is aimed to address some of the issues we've recently encountered in making collective decisions. The process I am proposing would use pull request to discuss proposals. To demonstrate the process, I submitted my proposal as a pull request