Morning Stas, and all, This discussion was ... a mess, partly my fault, I suppose.
I said I was going to bring it up for voting quickly on the say so of Nikita, and because it feels urgent to us, you can guess our reasons for that. I'm not going to argue back and forth for the next week about the reasons we think this is important. In a week, let's say next Friday, to be totally fair, this RFC will go to vote. Cheers Joe On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 06:16, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > > Let me reply to the last point first, because I think that's really the > > crux here: The issue is not that this RFC is very urgent per se, it's > that > > it has already been delayed numerous times and it is imperative that we > > prevent that from happening again. Since this issue was first raised, a > > That's understandable. But I think if we have an ongoing discussion now, > waiting until this discussion comes to some conclusion or at least > giving it some reasonable time to do so is a good thing. Note the > "reasonable" part - it doesn't mean it should wait another 2 years. But > if 2+ year old RFC is revived I think it's reasonable to wait a week or > two with vote. Original margins were meant for situation where somebody > puts up RFC and immediately proceeds to vote, not for situation where > RFC lies dormant for 2 years, then revived and immediately proceeds to > vote without most people even remembering what happened 2 years ago. I > think in this case it's reasonable to wait a little bit - and I don't > see a reason why not. > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com >
