Sara Golemon wrote on 8/24/21 14:29: > 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".
Agreed. We already have a policy for this, and the RMs are empowered to make these decisions now. This RFC doesn't define anything new. > 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. I would be in favor of an "informational" RFC rather than a "policy" RFC. An informational RFC can define terms, such as "refinement RFC" and "feature freeze," without burdening the project with more policy overhead. Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
