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 <[email protected]> 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