GNU bug report logs -
#74736
[PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Previous Next
Reported by: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:29:02 UTC
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Merged with 66844
Done: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #93 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
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" <ludo <at> gnu.org> 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• Remove mention of the ‘withdrawn/’ directory: it’s redundant with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.
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 90 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.