Subject: Re: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process.

From: reza <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 06:33:55 +0000

Thanks for pushing this forward.

As a maybe tangential comment: There is no mention of an identifier for an RFC (e.g. PEP number) or a unique string to identify or reference it?

On January 6, 2025 11:29:21 PM GMT+01:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hello,

As proposed before, here’s a reworked version based on v5.  The intent
is to keep the spirit and process unchanged compared to v5, while making

the document a bit more concise (239 lines, v5 was 322), improving
consistency for key words, hopefully improving wording, fixing
grammatical issues, and adding Markdown ornaments where appropriate.

Notable changes:

  • Instead of “supporter” and “co-supporter”, I propose “author(s)” and
    “supporter(s)” (there must be at least one supporter).

  • Explicitly state the license of RFCs (CC-BY-SA or GFDL).

  • Clarify that the deliberation period lasts exactly 14 days (was “up
    to 14 days” in one place, “14 days” in another).

  • Consistently name the different periods.

  • Remove mention of the ‘withdrawn/’ directory: it’s redundant with
    the ‘status’ header.

  • Clarify what to do with “deprecated” RFCs.

  • Clarify headers of this RFC.

  • Clarify that this is not just for technical changes.
  
I can proofread and possibly propose minor tweaks the template
afterwards.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

-- Sent from /e/OS Mail.