On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 5:57 PM Tobias Nyholm <tobias.nyh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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. > > Agreed, and I would say that we DO have a policy. The policy is that the RMs make a judgement call in the moment. I still think the attributes syntax was appropriate to make an exception for (given it was a new feature and this would be our last chance to refine the syntax), as was the nullable intersections case (the additional change to the engine was trivial, while providing notable benefit). So I would say we don't need a strong policy saying "exceptions in these cases only". However, I'm all for some definitions of best practices and considerations to take into account to make the decision making process more predictable and less arbitrary. TL;DR - This RFC sounds like a great idea, assuming appropriately scoped. -Sara
