On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:48 AM Theodore Brown <theodor...@outlook.com> wrote:
> It has just come to my attention that this RFC was rushed to vote > after less than the minimum two week period required after it was > brought up on list. Furthermore, discussion was still very active at > that time - I certainly didn't have a chance to respond to some of > the emails before voting began. > > Joe first announced this RFC on Tuesday, July 28 at 9:47 AM, and the > vote was started this Monday at 3:41 AM, less than 12 days, 18 hours > after the announcement. Per the voting rules: > > So, 30 hours short of 2 weeks. I'm going to ascribe good intentions in trying to get the issue resolved in the minimal timeframe. The fact active discussion was ongoing makes this a questionable choice, but in my opinion, purely on a matter of time, quibbling over 30 hours is splitting hairs. Maybe compromise on adding time to the vote end period so that the total is greater than 4 weeks? > What should be done to prevent this rule from being violated? > > Vigilance. You're right to raise the concern. And let's wag a finger over it at least. If others agree that it's premature, we can stop the vote, but I'm not inclined to disrupt the process over such a small variance. > Also, I still don't understand why this RFC has a special exemption > to the feature freeze deadline, given that the whole basis for it > (a supposed lack of consistency) is at best a subjective opinion. > > Changing the syntax isn't a feature. It's a refinement. One of the things our long release process provides is a chance to be absolutely certain before we introduce syntax we'll come to regret later. -Sara
