Comments

• Greg Beaver: main comment added, "Poorly thought-out RFCs should not be made public." - was not added as it was considered obvious... and a little difficult to define..

• Jon Praise: mentioned Pythons PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals) http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html (some modifications made based on this document)

• Lukas Smith: mentions that any opinions not incorporated should detail the authors reasoning for not including them. (added)

• IRC discussions:

  • RFCs would be created on pedantic issues - like adding feature X to a package (see rule on RFC issues)

  • how should Pear-group be involved in a proposal / approval.. what if in a whim of chaos it decided to add support for GPL packages without understanding the concequences (see pear-group veto)

• Stefan Neufeind: Would like to see notes auto-attached to PEPr like : modified Action list to include wishlist.

• Toby : Called for volunteers to help out implement Wishlist (see mailing list for details)

• Richard York: Asked for automated tracking of responses to Comments - so they get appended to PEPr. (while nice, I'm not sure this is directly related to the RFC, and really depends on someone volunteering to do it.)

• Ian Eure, Lukas Smith: Commented on the varying views about Comment on comments. (While the rule is not intended to restrict open discussion, it is there to focus comments on the issue at hand, helping the RFC author gather views for the document.) - The document has been updated a bit to clarify this issue.

• Lukas Smith: copyright note - have added that to the wishlist for PEPr. - It's a bit silly to add it to each document if we can do it via PEPr.