Hi everyone,
I have posted the recent two announcements about prolongation of CDRs
to all three CDR-related mailing lists. We don't have the intention
to post such and similar announcements to all three lists in the
future. I have only done this because I assume that currently, people
may not be signed up to the appropriate mailing lists, especially
because cdr-discuss has only been a recent addition.
In the future, we will restrict announcements to cdr-announce
exclusively. As advertised, cdr-discuss is for discussion about
specific CDRs, and cdr-devel is for discussion about CDR itself.
There may be some overlap between cdr-discuss and cdr-devel when it
comes to the CDR document describing the CDR process, but I guess
this will pose no serious problems.
Cheers,
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
Since the cdr-discuss mailing list is only a few days old, and on
request by the author, we have prolonged the initial period before
finalization of CDR 2 "A generic hash table interface specification
for Common Lisp" by Ingvar Mattsson until January 15, 2007. Ingvar
Mattsson welcomes discussions about this CDR at cdr-discuss to which
he is subscribed himself. Please mention CDR 2 in the subject line in
your postings about this CDR.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
Since the cdr-discuss mailing list is only a few days old, and on
request by the author, we have prolonged the initial period before
finalization of CDR 3 "Revisiting CONCATENATE-SEQUENCE" by Christophe
Rhodes until January 15, 2007. Christophe Rhodes welcomes discussions
about this CDR at cdr-discuss to which he is subscribed himself.
Please mention CDR 3 in the subject line in your postings about this
CDR.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
Hello everybody,
Based on the constructive feedback we have got on the CDR process so
far, we have made some changes to CDR as follows.
+ First, due to the fact that the CDR process has been described as
CDR 0 which has already been finalized, strictly speaking we aren't
allowed to make changes to CDR anymore. We have solved this by
resubmitting the CDR process itself as CDR 4. You can find the new
version at http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/4/ together with the
changes compared to CDR 0 (which are also described below).
Since we expect more suggestions for improvement in the near future,
we use an exceptionally long initial period for CDR 4 until November
1, 2007. This allows us to make changes as we go along. At the same
time, the CDR process in use will already be CDR 4. This means that
the CDR process for submitted CDRs until then will be somewhat
unstable, but we think that this gives us the advantage of being able
to experiment a little such that the final result will hopefully be a
better tested process.
Consider this equivalent to the bootstrapping of a metacircular
software architecture, or to the development of any new piece of
software for that matter, where you have to test and change things as
you go as well. ;)
+ We have added more details about submission of accompanying
material, especially with regard to licenses that give us the right
to publish it at the CDR website and related publications. We forgot
about this issue in CDR 0.
+ We have added a section where we ask authors and submitters to
provide rationales for changes they have made during the initial
period. From now on, we also intend to add archives of previous
versions of a CDR for better traceability of such changes.
+ We have added a mailing list cdr-discuss - see http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cdr-discuss for the mailing list
page. This mailing list is supposed to be used for discussions about
specific CDRs. This is especially useful when CDRs are in their
initial period, but may also be useful afterwards. The already
existing cdr-devel is purely for discussions about issues related to
CDR itself (that go beyond the scope of what is described in CDR 0
and CDR 4).
We hope that these changes address the suggestions we have got so far.
Best,
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
Pascal Costanza <pc(a)p-cos.net> writes:
> Ingvar Mattsson has submitted a new version of CDR 2 which is now
> available at http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/
I know that this isn't in the original contract, but I'd really like
it if previous, superseded versions of CDRs were available, ideally
with some description of why a change was made. Would there be scope
in the CDR process to either encourage or enforce this, and is it
technically feasible to make such earlier versions accessible?
(so for example <http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/newest/> is the
same as <http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/>, while there would also
be <http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/v1> in this case.)
Cheers,
Christophe
First of all, congratulations on CDR getting some traction!
Secondly, what's the charter of the cdr-devel list? Is it only for
"talking about the CDR process", or are existing CDRs a proper topic
too?
If not, I propose a separate list cdr-talk, for which existing CDRs
are on topic, and where the subject line should carry a [CDR N] header
to indicate which CDR is addressed. (Leaving the cdr-devel for
meta-discussions on the process and whatnot.)
Also, can we get the lists (including the archives) on Gmane,
please? The subscription form is here:
http://gmane.org/subscribe.php
Finally, have you considered providing a liberal boilerplate licence
(eg. CC attribution only, or 1-clause MIT) that CDR authors could use
should they want to? I am cogitant of the fact that such a licence may
not be appropriate for all CDRs, but for those for which it is, it
would be nice to have a single default choise to cut down on possible
future ambiguiety.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."