On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:16 AM 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. > That's reasonable. What is important to me is that: a) We don't vote RFCs with low margins in the meantime. As a show of good faith, it would be nice to adjust the vote in the JIT RFC to require a 2/3 majority. b) The voting margin question is resolved separately from other concerns. I very specifically do not want this bundled with anything else. I don't want the voting margin adjustment to fail because of other changes bundled in the same RFC. Conversely, I do not want other changes in the same RFC to pass simply because it's the only way to get the voting margin changes. Nikita
