On Mar 22, 2015 3:45 PM, "Leigh" <lei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
The minimal discussion time is well documented and approved. Same for the voting period.
