rfc:rfc.third-party-editing
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
rfc:rfc.third-party-editing [2016/05/12 17:30] – created pollita | rfc:rfc.third-party-editing [2017/09/22 13:28] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* Date: 2016-05-12 | * Date: 2016-05-12 | ||
* Author: Sara Golemon < | * Author: Sara Golemon < | ||
- | * Status: | + | * Status: |
* First Published at: http:// | * First Published at: http:// | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
===== Proposal ===== | ===== Proposal ===== | ||
This proposal suggests the introduction of a new section to the standard RFC template for "Third Party Arguments", | This proposal suggests the introduction of a new section to the standard RFC template for "Third Party Arguments", | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is the RECOMMENDATION of this RFC that summaries placed in the " | ||
If taken advantage of (and it would be optional to all parties), then not only does this provide a unified and consistent place to find established arguments during the voting phase, it ensures a historical record of the discussion in a more accessible format than searching mail archives. | If taken advantage of (and it would be optional to all parties), then not only does this provide a unified and consistent place to find established arguments during the voting phase, it ensures a historical record of the discussion in a more accessible format than searching mail archives. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Note that point 5 of https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Codify how summaries be presented into a rough format | ||
+ | * Update the default template to encourage RFC proponents to actually DO it. | ||
+ | * Grant implicit permission for parties other than the RFC author to make a class of edits to an RFC without explicit permission | ||
===== RFC Impact ===== | ===== RFC Impact ===== | ||
Line 21: | Line 29: | ||
| | ||
==== In Favor ==== | ==== In Favor ==== | ||
- | Arguments by individuals as to why this proposal is a good idea. | + | * Concise list of arguments |
+ | * Summarized for easy review | ||
==== Against ==== | ==== Against ==== | ||
- | Arguments by individuals as to why this proposal is a bad idea. | + | * Longer paragraphs are permitted, but brevity should be considered where possible. |
===== Proposed Voting Choices ===== | ===== Proposed Voting Choices ===== | ||
Adopt these new headings and codify scope-limited editing of other' | Adopt these new headings and codify scope-limited editing of other' | ||
rfc/rfc.third-party-editing.1463074252.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 (external edit)