Hi
Thank you for explaining your position. The RFC has been accepted in the
mean time, but I wanted to nevertheless comment on your email.
On 11/15/25 10:19, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
I wish common sense still remains our main approach, and the RFC as
proposed makes me feel we go into more bureaucracy.
And to me, bureaucratie makes things smoother only for the experts of its
own rules.
I feel exactly the opposite. I feel that having clear rules - that are
followed by every contributor - make it easier for less-experienced
contributors to follow the same standard. Instead of needing to learn
about expectations by reading up on older RFCs, there is a clear
document that they can refer to.
In my opinion most of the policy can be summarized as: “Take your time
to make sure to build the best possible RFC together with the other
participants”. The formalization of the Cooldown Period is probably the
most significant thing that has newly been written down and I don't
think it's a particularly complicated rule to follow.
The other things, like keeping a Changelog, is something that is easy to
fix when someone forgets. Someone will notice and send a reminder for
you to update the changelog. Or if something is missing from the voting
announcement mail, someone else can add the missing information in a reply.
A SHOULD instead of a MUST however just invites discussion of whether or
not it is okay to ignore the rule in any specific case, which will just
add noise to the list and is what a policy is intended to avoid.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
