On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, at 19:52, Rob Landers wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, at 19:31, Ben Ramsey wrote: >> > On Jun 29, 2024, at 12:25, Saki Takamachi <s...@sakiot.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> >> Sure, it’s allowed to change its mind, but if we bring this for a vote in >> >> two weeks, and then we vote a week later for the other (or even at the >> >> same time), I would see the results of those votes as conflicting >> >> viewpoints and not as the community changing its mind within the span of >> >> a few weeks. >> > >> > I am pretty sure there is no chance that another RFC will start voting at >> > the same time as this one (unless they ignore the discussion and start it >> > forcefully). >> > >> > And even if they were to force a vote, it would have almost no chance of >> > passing. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Saki >> >> >> Fair enough. I agree that we probably won’t find ourselves in this >> hypothetical conflicting state. >> >> Cheers, >> Ben >> > > I think it is extremely likely they'll be out for a vote at the exact same > time. I literally just finished the implementation and example code. I'll > probably be opening a PR in the morning (EU time) as well as updating the RFC > with clearer examples, details for implementors, etc. > > My RFC includes a vote that this RFC encompasses, so it seems like a pissing > match just for the sake of pissing. > > — Rob
Actually, please keep this RFC. Apologies for my earlier remarks. — Rob
