On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 5:49 PM Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I appreciate the effort that went into the proposal and I value the > technical discussions we've had, I feel the transition to the voting phase > comes a bit too soon. It seemed like the conversation still had room to > evolve, and seeing the vote opened while I (and possibly others) were still > forming or refining thoughts is demotivating. > > Moments like this make it clear how emotionally demanding participating on > internals can be. I believe strongly in the importance of open, respectful, > and inclusive dialogue - especially when we disagree. That’s how we move > things forward, even if it takes time. > > I’m sharing this not to single anyone out, but because I care about this > space and I hope we can keep making the process more collaborative, > especially around timing and closure of discussions. > > Nicolas > Thank you for your concerns, I agree. This RFC was, given how small in scope it was, a lot more emotionally taxing than I expected going in, and looking back I'm not sure if it was worth the effort. Being pulled towards unrelated or out of scope ideas on and off the list and arguing against scope and syntax creep was quite draining. I'm very happy we reached a point in the discussion where I feel this RFC doesn't block any future improvements or additions and can be voted without negatively impacting anything when accepted. (You might feel different ofc). > I’m sharing this not to single anyone out, but because I care about this space and I hope we can keep making the process more collaborative, especially around timing and closure of discussions. I do feel both me and Tim have been very diligent in answering every question and concern here, so this is very frustrating and demotivating to hear indeed. While the timing of your last reply and our plan to start the vote collided at bit I do not feel further discussion would have changed anything on the matter here as we very much didn't want to touch __clone or parameters to it in this RFC, clearly spelling this out in the rejected features. So, for me, the best outcome was to vote and be done with this instead of letting this peter out like the first one. Getting the feedback that is this not respectful, or inclusive or open is difficult to understand and painful. Kind Regards, Volker -- Volker Dusch Head of Engineering Tideways GmbH Königswinterer Str. 116 53227 Bonn https://tideways.io/imprint Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn Geschäftsführer: Benjamin Außenhofer (geb. Eberlei) Registergericht: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 22127
