> Tobias Nyholm wrote:
>> then the discussion and the vote should not consider âif it is too lateâ
>> or âthis is rushedâ.
> This is a really bad idea. Previously (but not recently), some of the
> more heated RFC discussions moved from being about the RFC to being
> about what are "right" and "wrong" reasons for voting.
> That type of discussion very quickly descends into either name
> calling, or people just refusing to take part in discussions.
> If nothing else, how would you 'prove' that someone has voted for the
> 'wrong reason', and so needs to have their vote discounted?
The issue I have with adding more guidelines for RFCs âpost feature freezeâ is that it removes decision power from the release managers. Ie, one way of reading this proposal is that we donât trust the release managers to decide what to include and not to include in a release.
To allow the release managers to have this decision power is not a âviolation of voter rightsâ, that is just a silly argument.
> The proposal is rooted in making it easier for release managers and rfc
> authors to refine code changes that may or may not be necessary to
> accomplish a previously approved RFC.
Maybe we should hear what the current and previous release managers think? Do they feel like they need more policies around their work?