Re: Proposal: Proposals are the wrong approach [prose and long]

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Saturday, May 3, 2014, Karel Tuma <kat@lua.cz> wrote:
> Excerpts from Andrew Starks's message of 2014-05-03 19:31:17 +0200:
>
> > tl;dr
>
> You, sir, won my day with your wonderful sense for irony. Walls of text
> are the worst, works maybe only with numbered sections RFCs.

In order for me to be ironic, I would have needed to be ranting about long emails.

It would have been the height of awesomeness if you had started a rant against people posting walls of text that rail against other posts. 

You sir, missed an opportunity to be recursive. That is not ironic, but it is tragic. 

The rest of your reply was too long, so I didn't bother to read it. :)

-Andrew

> In fact, it wouldn't hurt to tag emails [RFC], [RANT] or [PATCH], see:
>
> > As a recovering Proposal Factory, these are some things I think before
> > setting down to write about a change to Lua:
>
> Banal and cosmetic changes, which are unfortunately majority
> brought up in here, without (at least sketch) implementation is not
> proposal at all, but empty [RANT].
>
> So while I claim to be no proposal expert either, here goes my [RANT]:
>
> While Lua is comparably small so there is no need to formalize,
> bigger projects had to tame it with standardised community proposal
> process (BitTorrent, Python, Bitcoin...). Even then, for simple
> stuff, one is given voice only if there is either workable proof
> [PATCH]/[ANN] of concept code or legible [RFC] formal spec.
>
> tl;dr:
>
> MOAR CODE, MOAAAAAAAAR CODE
>
> --k