<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 6/30/22 13:00, Eli Adam wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACqBkM-8e87W_gfZPm6Fo3SucF95STJQUochzaW0FWGJMk9k9A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
<input name="virtru-metadata" type="hidden"
value="{"email-policy":{"state":"closed","expirationUnit":"days","disableCopyPaste":false,"disablePrint":false,"disableForwarding":false,"enableNoauth":false,"persistentProtection":false,"expandedWatermarking":false,"expires":false,"isManaged":false,"sms":false},"attachments":{},"compose-id":"17","compose-window":{"secure":false}}"></div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" style="">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 8:35
AM Dan Little <<a href="mailto:theduckylittle@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">theduckylittle@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">RFC-4 is why I thought we may need an RFC
for this. Since it would supersede what is in the previous
RFC. Maybe RFC-4’s codification if the standard was
misguided but we’re stuck with it now. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After rereading RFC-4, I don't think that we codified any
standards in the RFC and were wise enough to make reference
to standards (which have already changed once before see
/developer/standards vs /docs/style_guide). Updating the
style guide and a simple PSC vote by email or IRC at the
next meeting make sense to me but I'd like to hear from
others too. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">We could also revise
RFC-9 to accept whatever we put
<div dir="auto">into the style guide and the style guide is
changed by simple vote. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we did paint ourselves into the corner with RFC-4, I
think this is a better path out. I see it as already
falling into the realm of routine project functions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm also not seeing how RFC-4 precludes updating the style guide
without an RFC.<br>
<br>
Although, I also don't see that this discussion is inappropriate for
an RFC. This is a request for comments on a proposal that impacts
the project. Members can comment, propose amendments, and vote to
express agreement or disagreement and a RFC seems like the
appropriate way to document that process. I know we've been
treating RFCs somewhat equivalent to making a constitutional
amendment, but I really don't think a RFC needs to carry that much
weight to be useful/valid.<br>
<br>
For example, look at the recent MapServer RFCs:<br>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<body>
<li class="toctree-l1"><a class="reference internal"
href="https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-133.html">MS
RFC 133: Mapfile Syntax Cleanup</a></li>
<li class="toctree-l1"><a class="reference internal"
href="https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-134.html">MS
RFC 134: OGC API Support</a></li>
<li class="toctree-l1"><a class="reference internal"
href="https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-135.html">MS
RFC 135: MapServer 8.0 Config file</a></li>
<li class="toctree-l1"><a class="reference internal"
href="https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-136.html">MS
RFC 136: Rename shp2img to map2img</a></li>
<li class="toctree-l1"><a class="reference internal"
href="https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-137.html">MS
RFC 137: Native FlatGeobuf support</a></li>
</body>
<p>A couple have fairly broad impact, but most of them are fairly
trivial in nature, down to renaming a single file. I think RFCs
are better used for documenting the decision making process rather
than setting something in stone. Which is to say, I don't think
we need to be afraid of RFCs (as long as we have a functional PSC
anyway). RFCs are cheap, it's just a file and a vote.<br>
</p>
<p>And just because I've recently had discussions about implementing
<span>Architectural Decision Records for internal projects and
realizing they basically serve the same function as RFCs:<br>
</span></p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions">https://cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions</a><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>