On Tuesday 02 December 2003 03:38 pm, David A. Black wrote:
> The new RCR process (still under construction) comes directly from a
> request from Matz, and is being developed with feedback from him, so
> hopefully it will address his concerns.  For the other things you
> mention, I'd be happy to see much or most of the discourse about
> changing Ruby moved to a wiki somewhere, as you suggest.  (There's
> vastly too much of it on the mailing lists for my personal taste.)
> The goal of the RCR site, however, is to be self-contained,
> RCR-dedicated, and reasonably rigorous, so I don't think it's
> practicable or desirable to mandate that people also go through a
> pre-RCR process unless they want to.

Certainly no one should be forced to use such a process. But to have such a 
process available, well, if it were, then wouldn't that be of greater 
benefit? Wouldn't RCR's be better, and less of them for matz to deal with? 
Without it, I fear we will have more of the same, just with more fields to 
fill out.

You make some excellent points and I think it helps refine the notion of a 
forum for this domain of inqury and devleopment. I believe we can approach it 
in stages. You're working on the end result, the RCR. So lets add to this the 
very front most end, which is really nothing more than a new mailing 
(ruby-muse, or whatever). With those in place we can then build a wiki like 
bridge, that is in part a web based interface to the mailing list archive, 
but administrable so posts/threads can catagorized; and also in part a 
"sandbox" for RCR building, with peer comment and poling features. In this 
last respect it should also have some relationship to what you are currently 
working on so that when such an RCR is felt complete, one can click 
[Officially Submit]. Does that sound like a fair plan?


T.