> On 25. Sep 2025, at 05:02, Rob Landers <[email protected]> wrote: > > This would allow an unscrupulous person to basically restart a vote if it > isn’t going in the direction they want, without any reason other than an > “issue” with the RFC. This means they can rely upon attrition to eventually > pass an RFC that would otherwise not pass, bypassing the current “one year or > with major changes” rule. > > For example, the nested classes RFC was clearly not going to pass. Had this > policy existed, taking what feedback I had already gotten, I could have > simply declared “an issue” and updated it with their feedback; restarting the > vote. I personally wouldn’t do that, but this would explicitly allow that > behavior. > > — Rob
Hey, I am wondering if this is actually a bad thing. I’d argue if a RFC is evolving until it passes it does good for the language. Maybe such "in between votes” could help to gather sentiment in complicated, lengthy discussions? Author tries, sees that it likely will not succeed, goes back to discussion, refines, starts vote again. There would need to be clear rules for that too, of course. Maybe maximum restarts until the 6 month rule applies? I find this worth to think about . Cheers Nick
