On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:17 AM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Keep in mind that for example the FFI RFC passed with something like 60% > majority, even lower than this RFC. I think you're cherry-picking a bit > here, when it comes to what should and shouldn't pass ;) > You're right, but I think that's a price well worth paying (i.e., I'd be absolutely fine if the FFI RFC did not pass, as well as some other RFCs I was fond of, if it meant that controversial RFCs were a thing of the past - at least in terms of passing). > Process wise we're in a bit of an unchartered territory here, but I don't >> think we should let the headache involved with figuring out how to reverse >> this decision force us to impose this on our users. It's better to go >> through this unpleasantry now than deal with the backlash later. >> > > I think that process-wise (if we can't agree on landing some variation of > this, as I've suggested in a separate thread) the right thing to do would > be to draft a new RFC that overrules this one. It can lay out the new > arguments that have come up in the meantime in an orderly manner and be > voted separately. > If we go in this direction, though, then unless George agrees to withdraw this RFC and have it replaced by another - it means that the 'status quo' is that short tags are out, and there must be a 2/3 majority to undo that. Where we stand - I don't think it's a very likely scenario. It's clear there are many folks that want short tags gone - probably more so than there are those who think they should stay (and not necessarily because they love them). Zeev
