From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2006-11-25T23:10:13+09:00
Subject: Re: New RCRchive, including new process

Hi--

dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> Thanks for the report.  I discovered that it was trying to assign a
> number to your RCR by adding 1 to the previous number -- but since
> yours was the first, it tried to query the number of nil and bombed.

to_i ;-)

> I'm sorry you're finding the new process unappealing.  The basics of
> it -- the starting again, the separate mailing lists, and so forth --
> are all things that Matz asked me to implement.  I'm really no more
> qualified to discuss them than anyone else (other than Matz), and I'm
> not going to make changes except at Matz's direction.  So ultimately
> you'll have to talk to him.  I'd suggest giving it a(nother :-) try,
> though.  I definitely want the whole thing to go smoothly and will try
> to make sure that it does.

Thanks David. I understand that this is Matz' call. I suppose I could
have just written him. But I think everyone who participates in the RCR
process has a stake in how it works. It's not just that the process is
unappealling per se. It's frustating that the process is being
restarted from scratch for the 3rd time while the difference between
the restarts appears marginal at best. If you recall the last time this
transformation occured I heavy argued for an RCR mailing list and even
tried to start one. It had some limited success but it's the kind of
thing that just doesn't fly without official support. I believe what we
will get with this new process is just more of the same, becasue what
is really needed is a screening forum to eliminate lack-luster ideas
before they ever go to RCR and focus the good ones that do.

It's also very frustarting to see all ones contributions just
dissapear, as I've spent a fair amount of time submitting and
commenting on RCRs. (And that accounts for the strong tone of my post).

> The other thing I will do in short order is make the old archive
> available, on a read-only basis.  I also have to do RSS feeds, as Tim
> Bray mentioned.

That at least helps.

Thanks,
T.