An archive of proposals needed?
Mon, 12 May 1997 19:51:15 -0500
| From: Jordan Henderson <jordan@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
| I've been thinking of a way that I could make some positive
| contribution to this effort. I could set up a web page on a well
| connected site in the US to hold documents, pointers to the list
| archives, instructions for getting on/off the various lists. I've
| only got 10 MB web space, but that should be enough for a while.
| (And, I might be able to get some more, as necessary.)
| I think a good thing to have would be an archive of proposals, we
| could call them RFCs (Request For Comments). These can be anything,
| manifesto drafts, architecture, etc. But, they should be specific,
| and not just ramblings about philosophy or postering about positions.
| Each of these documents will have authors attached to them that "own"
| the proposal. People will be encouraged to forward comments directly
| to these people for revisions. We could use a standard revision
| system for the RFCs and the revisions. For example, if the manifesto
| document were RFC 1.0, then the first revision would be 1.1, etc.
| I would exercise no editorial control except to reject proposals that
| have no pertinent content (I will be reserved about rejections). If
| someone complains to the list and someone agrees with them that their
| RFC be accepted, I promise to accept it. Mostly, these proposals would
| be technical, but not limited to that. The proposals could include
| policitical documents about the structure of a future organization,
| licensing issues, etc. If someone feels diametrically opposed to a
| proposal, then they can submit a counter-proposal as another RFC, and
| I will link the two on the page that introduces each RFC. I think a
| good structure would be a page that introduces the RFC, gives it's
| number, a short name, an abstract, links to all of the revisions and
| links to alternate proposal, or related proposal RFCs.
| Hey, I could do this anyway just by extracting posts to the list and
| advertising they are there, but I want it to be a positive thing.
| Before I start, I'd like to hear your comments about the process I'm
| proposing. I hope that this will address the traffic concerns to
| some extent. I'm thinking that we can get people working on public
| documents, and sending review comments around to the authors, rather
| than everybody seeing all of the discussion.
| This would be an unofficial function for an unconstituted group, but done
| well, it might help us all see the subjects clearly and reduce the
I definitely think this is a good idea. Something more I would like to
see - Terminology Pages associated with either the specific groups or the
RFCs (or I guess they could be associated RFCs, and certainly should start
out that way) so we won't have all this cross-purpose flailing about.