Am 22.03.2015 09:45 schrieb "Leigh" <lei...@gmail.com>: > > 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.
Probably not all things, but surely everything visible at the language level, that would need documentation. Syntax, functions, function argument changes. Probably also changes of official C level API for module authors (thinking about session management, ZPP, etc). Pure C level refactoring - probably not. And not for bugfixing that brings code behaviour fully inline with what's already documented. >> 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. Okay, that's easier to implement and probably sufficient, if everybody play nice. Or, another idea and maybe a lot less work to implement: all active release managers could have a "want a vote" button on pending RFC pages. Patrick
