gep-2 redux, and gep naming

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

Hi:

I have revised gep-2, a.k.a. "Metatheme" in response to feedback.

The primary change is a conversion of gep-2 to a "requirements" gep.  In
order to preserve at least some of the previous discussion I am
preparing a second, "action" gep which, provided some version of gep-2
with consensus requirements is approved, would be cite gep-2 as its
requirements specification (and justification).

In the meantime I have added a note that the 'action' gep (whatever
number we give it) is idling while we solidify requirements, and we
could re-activate it if and when we agree to the requirements.

But I wonder, wouldn't it be nice to revise the GEP numbering system to
include the category?  For instance,

gep-2R would be a requirements spec, gep-2A would be the subsequent
action proposal... action-only geps would have no corresponding 'R'.

It would be one less thing to remember (e.g. which req-s gep refers to
which action gep, etc.) without having to consult the gep content...

Are there reasons for keeping the current monotonic-integer naming
scheme, without a suffix?  

In the meantime I have revised gep-2, I will wait for feedback before
putting "gep-6" (or "gep-2A") back in CVS...

best regards,

Bill