On Mar 22, 2015 2:01 PM, "Patrick Schaaf" <p...@bof.de> wrote: > > Am 22.03.2015 02:30 schrieb "Leigh" <lei...@gmail.com>: > > > > Yep, this does look like another case of simply ignoring rules. The fact > > that what does and does not require an RFC does not help, this probably > > didn't need one, however one was created and the rules need to be stuck > to. > > Hmm. Is that really the line to be drawn? An RFC, by itself, provides a > good point to spell out a change clearly, and anchor it for reference in > discussion. Discussion on internals itself cannot provide that, it is too > scattered, and POC code provides it at the code layer only. Thinking about > documentation, for example. > > So, maybe the line is better drawn at what needs a vote, and what does not? > > Just an idea: as soon as an RFC goes up / leaves draft state, could it have > a "needs a vote?" prevoting section? And if a certain minimum opts for > "needs a vote" (within a minimum discussion period after leaving draft), > one must be held? (thinking about a one week period and three or five > needs-a-vote calls, or something similar)
I would not say it better :) RFC, even for small things streamline everything and make it easy to get the idea and write docs. However the main problem here is to ask on Friday and apply on Saturday.
