Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Sara Golemon wrote on 8/24/21 14:29:
> Agreed, and I would say that we DO have a policy. The policy is that t=
> RMs make a judgement call in the moment. I still think the attributes
> syntax was appropriate to make an exception for (given it was a new fea=
> and this would be our last chance to refine the syntax), as was the
> nullable intersections case (the additional change to the engine was
> trivial, while providing notable benefit). So I would say we don't nee=
> strong policy saying "exceptions in these cases only".
Agreed. We already have a policy for this, and the RMs are empowered to
make these decisions now. This RFC doesn't define anything new.
> However, I'm all for some definitions of best practices and considerati=
> to take into account to make the decision making process more predictab=
> and less arbitrary.
I would be in favor of an "informational" RFC rather than a "policy"
RFC. An informational RFC can define terms, such as "refinement RFC" and
"feature freeze," without burdening the project with more policy overhead=