On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, hipster wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000  16:58:30 +0900, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> META: This thread discusses something orthogonal to Conrad's post.
> 
> > First, a little introductory background 
> > (http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/fellowsd-bin/TIP/):
	[...]
> > # TIP stands for Tcl Improvement Proposal. A TIP is a design document
> 
> Now this is something I'd really like to see for Ruby (e.g. RAP / Ruby
> Augmentation Proposals, analogue to RRFC / Ruby Request for Comments).
> 
Do you mean have both of these?  
If so, how are they to differ?
	[...]
> This solution begs another question (of course): how are we going to
> setup responsibilities? There's always Matz as our benevolent dictator

I'd see him as having final say, as well as any input he likes along the 
way of course.

> (Linus:kernel ~ Matz:Ruby), but do we need/want an organisational
> structure (like Debian? voting?) to handle these things? We might want

I don't know debian structure.  I would not simplify this to a vote --
I'd suggest a process of peer review like the way science should work.
(OK, science can get very political, but so can any system).  The
difference between voting and peer review is "positions supported by
reasoning".  At least, that's what I'm thinking here.  This seems to
be the way internet standards are created as well, AFAICS.

Would RWiki help with such a procedure?  I've not used it yet, but it
would help in logging decisions made, provided the decision structure is
not drowned in the discussion.

	[...]
> 	Michel
> 
> 
	Hugh
	hgs / dmu.ac.uk