An archive of proposals needed?

[Dwight Hughes]

| 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
numbering
| 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
chatter.

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.

-- Dwight