On 22 March 2015 at 07:00, Patrick Schaaf <p...@bof.de> wrote: > > 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. > Sure, I can agree on RFC all the things.
> 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 suppose this could be part of the discussion on list when it is not obvious, then we at least have some documented opinions on the decision, rather than the assumptions of individuals.
