Name: A revised RFC system
Replaces: RFC #1
The Request For Comment (RFC)
Any change in the API of the CDK should be formalized in aRequest For
Comment's (RFC's). A RFC is a document like this which is written by one or
more developers, containing a API description, like package names, class
organization, method names, etc. etc. RFC's will serve as a discussion
platform and as a documentation tool. The RFC may be changed during the
period of discussion on the developers mailling list
The Call For Votes (CFV)
At any time the writers of the RFC may choose to Call For Votes (CFV). To do
so, they compose a final RFC which will be subject to majority voting. When
called for votes, each CDK developer and user can vote in favor or against
the RFC. The voting period is at least two weeks, and at most three weeks,
and will take place by using voting ballots that are send along with the CFV.
During July and August the minimum number of weeks for the voting period.
The writer is strongly encouraged to send a reminder email a few days before
the end of the voting period.
Filled in CFVs are returned by email to the developers mailling list, and are
preferably signed with a PGP/GnuPG key known by free keyservers. One can only
vote in favor (YES) or against (NO) the acceptance of a RFC, and the majority
of votes count.
A RFC is only valid if it includes this information:
* A name. This is normally a sentence describing its intend.
* A "Proposal" paragraph. This will describe the may, should, and must's
which the RFC will enforce whence it is accepted.
* A "Reason" paragraph. This will describe why the RFC is needed, and may
include arguments to convince developers and users to accept the RFC.
* A list of accepted RFCs that it will replace.
The voting ballot must resemble the following format, and must include all
information and fields found in the following example ballot:
[ ] YES
[ ] NO
on the acceptance of RFC #2 posted on 22 May 2002 with the
title "list of core classes". The content of this RFC can be
found at http://cdk.sourceforge.net/rfc2.html.
The proper RFC number and title must be given as well as a link to the final
RFC and the date on which the final RFC was sent to the developers mailling
After the voting period is over, and the CFV is closed, the votes in favor and
the votes against are both counted. At least a total of three votes are
required to resolve a CFV. If less than three people vote on a CFV, then
the RFC is *not* accepted, even if all votes are in favor of the RFC.
The RFC is accepted if the majority of votes is in favor of the RFC. If the
majority of votes is against the RFC, then the RFC is not accepted. In case
of equal numbers, the RFC is not accepted either. After, and if, the RFC is
accepted, the RFC will be valid until replaced by another accepted RFC.
RFC #1 did not put a limit on the minimum amount of days the voting period
must take. This, amongst possible other factors, leaded to a situation where
only one person voted on the CFVs #14 and #16. This RFC adds a minimal amount
of weeks, adds a minimum number of total votes before the RFC can be accepted
at all, and adds a advisory to send an email to remind people of the CFV a few
days before the end of the voting period.
From: Christoph Steinbeck <c.steinbeck@un...> - 2003-06-30 06:52:00
E.L. Willighagen wrote:
> RFC #17
> Name: A revised RFC system
> Date: 2003-06-27
> Replaces: RFC #1
> This RFC adds a minimal amount
> of weeks, adds a minimum number of total votes before the RFC can be ac=
> at all, and adds a advisory to send an email to remind people of the CF=
V a few
> days before the end of the voting period.
I think these are exactly the measures we needed.
Dr. Christoph Steinbeck (e-mail: c.steinbeck@...)
Groupleader Junior Research Group for Applied Bioinformatics
Cologne University BioInformatics Center (http://www.cubic.uni-koeln.de)
Z=FClpicher Str. 47, 50674 Cologne
Tel: +49(0)221-470-7426 Fax: +49 (0) 221-470-7786
What is man but that lofty spirit - that sense of enterprise.
... Kirk, "I, Mudd," stardate 4513.3..