> > Situations like this often requires a judgement call rather than something > that could be defined as a policy. > I suggest the release managers always should be in agreement before a RFC > is created during a “feature freeze”. If the release managers agree that a > change can be added, then the discussion and the vote should not consider > “if it is too late” or “this is rushed”. I think we can trust the release > managers to make the correct desiccation without an extra policy. >
That would be a violation of voters rights. They are allowed to vote no without any reason whatsoever. Not having enough time to thoroughly discuss something or feeling like the RFC is being rushed due to feature freeze is a perfectly valid concern to vote No. I also disagree that 1 or 2 individual(s) (Release Managers) should hold power on influencing people's vote. On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:08 AM Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Marco, > > It is a very good text, thank you! > > It is also much needed, generally speaking. What I would add is about > what is allowed to begin with. I would rather restrict to fixes only. > > The other issue, which is the one Nicolas suffered from, incomplete > addition to begin with. Incomplete in the sense of, "We add feature A, > but behaviors A1 and A2 are not supported and can be done later". > > Best, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org > I believe that the concern you raise here would be categorized as outside the scope of what I intend to propose. The RFC process is in place to handle such cases. It may or may not need improvement, but the bottom line is that if enough voters agree with an RFC, even if everyone agrees that it is "incomplete" it's still an approved change for the language. A Refinement RFC policy would extend the time available to deal with implementation consequences found after the voting already took place, but ultimately would not really solve "incomplete" RFCs as perhaps completing an RFC might take an extra year or two. On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 4:43 AM Faizan Akram Dar <faizanakra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Tobias. Such changes / requests are rare and require a > judgement call. > While I don't disagree that exceptional processes are largely dependent on judgement calls, I don't think the proposal would largely step on such a matter. Taking the Nullable Intersection Type as an example, the author felt that the process was lacking in clarity. Another aspect that can be evaluated is that a Refinement RFC policy could allow shorter RFC periods due to it's limited scope, helping both RFC Authors and Release Managers to work within their deadline.
