On Fri, Oct 17, 2025, at 3:40 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: >>> The voting period MAY be canceled within the first 2 days in case of >>> severe issues with the RFC. >> >> I don't think this restriction is necessary. Tim mentioned to me >> off-list it was motivated by this message: >> https://externals.io/message/128594#128724. If the vote is passing and >> a bigger issue is discovered, allowing the authors to retract the vote >> seems like the better approach than relying on voters to change their >> vote, especially if there's not enough time for a follow-up RFC. If >> the vote is failing, keeping it going only wastes time when a solution >> could already be discussed. The linked message says: >> >>> 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. >> >> But I don't think this is true. Any fix for an issue would be >> classified as a major change, thus requiring a minimum cooldown period >> of 2 weeks. This seems equivalent to creating a new RFC and putting >> that to a vote after 2 weeks, which FWIU remains possible. > > Does anyone except Ilija have an opinion on this?
AIUI, the purpose of not allowing cancellation of the vote at any time is to avoid "it's about to fail so I'll pull it, to avoid the 6 month cooldown before I can resubmit" situations. I'm not sure how big of a concern that is. Personally I'd be fine allowing a cancellation up to the 1 week mark; that gives a bit more time to hear if "I'd vote yes except for this one small issue" is a significant enough constituency that it's worth short-circuiting the process without delaying another release cycle. --Larry Garfield
