On 18/07/2026 19:20, Benjamin Außenhofer wrote:
In my opinion it makes sense to vote on the concept and then have a
secondary vote on the name.
I‘d argue everyone agrees we need this but with only one option it
might fail.
Firstly, I'm not sure it's true that "everyone agrees we need this". I'm
not totally convinced that a per-file declare() is the right solution to
this problem; and there's clear disagreement about whether "always
global" or "always current NS" makes the most sense.
Secondly, a split vote leaves voters who actively dislike a particular
name with an awkward choice: vote Yes, and risk the "bad" name being
chosen; or vote No, even though you would support the feature under a
different name.
I think the name here is more than just a detail, it really changes the
perception of the whole feature.
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
