Thanks for pushing this forward. As a maybe tangential comment: There is no mention of an identifier for an RFC (e.g. PEP number) or a unique string to identify or reference it? On January 6, 2025 11:29:21 PM GMT+01:00, "Ludovic Courtès" wrote: Hello, As proposed before, here’s a reworked version based on v5. The intent is to keep the spirit and process unchanged compared to v5, while making the document a bit more concise (239 lines, v5 was 322), improving consistency for key words, hopefully improving wording, fixing grammatical issues, and adding Markdown ornaments where appropriate. Notable changes: • Instead of “supporter” and “co-supporter”, I propose “author(s)” and “supporter(s)” (there must be at least one supporter). • Explicitly state the license of RFCs (CC-BY-SA or GFDL). • Clarify that the deliberation period lasts exactly 14 days (was “up to 14 days” in one place, “14 days” in another). • Consistently name the different periods. • Remove mention of the ‘withdrawn/’ directory: it’s redundant with the ‘status’ header. • Clarify what to do with “deprecated” RFCs. • Clarify headers of this RFC. • Clarify that this is not just for technical changes. I can proofread and possibly propose minor tweaks the template afterwards. Thoughts? Ludo’. -- Sent from /e/OS Mail.