| 5 Nov 2021 |
 7c6f434c | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
I think one the problems with RFC process is that it encourages too much of waterfall ship-it-and-make-no-mistakes But it also encourages incremental «make the piece so small that we can actually finish discussing it» approach! (Or at least it encouraged this approach in me, when I wrote succesful RFCs) | 21:07:52 |
 @domenkozar:matrix.org | (my thanks refers to joepie91 🏳️🌈's comment on the RFC, in case someone wants to interpret it as expressing irony) | 21:08:04 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | * (my thanks refers to joepie91 🏳️🌈's comment on the RFC, in case someone interpreted it as expressing irony) | 21:08:54 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
But it also encourages incremental «make the piece so small that we can actually finish discussing it» approach! (Or at least it encouraged this approach in me, when I wrote succesful RFCs) A lot of things are never finished, but that doesn't mean at some point you have to make a snapshot and say "this is the status quo" | 21:10:29 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
But it also encourages incremental «make the piece so small that we can actually finish discussing it» approach! (Or at least it encouraged this approach in me, when I wrote succesful RFCs) * A lot of projects are never finished, but that doesn't mean at some point can't make a snapshot and say "this is the status quo" | 21:11:02 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | Maybe the missing puzzle is that we can allow PRs against merged RFCS instead of creating new RFCs | 21:11:38 |
| 7c6f434c | I think a few of our RFCs are continuations/improvements to previous ones | 21:12:47 |
| 7c6f434c | Moreover, some RFCs explicitly called for further relevant RFCs to be made later | 21:13:16 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | Sure, but we should allow RFCs to change | 21:13:40 |
| 7c6f434c | Yes, extending the process to explicit amendments is a nice idea | 21:13:50 |
| 7c6f434c | Although superseding instead works well enough in many cases | 21:14:34 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | It's really both that we need, sometimes you need a rewrite and sometimes you need incremental changes | 21:15:16 |
| 7c6f434c | I agree that PRs against RFCs could be useful. I just say that RFC process contains enough hooks that we have even seen used so that «process not mentioning amendments» is not really a blocker. Process not encouraging amendment-like workflows (for example, indeed, by saying the same procedure applies to PRs against previous RFCs) might indeed fail to help some good things to be thought of. | 21:17:55 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | alright, I'll put incremental rfcs todo on my list | 21:18:36 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | not sure if I have the time for it anytime soon | 21:18:49 |
| 7c6f434c | I kind of see one issue I am not sure how to handle | 21:19:09 |
| 7c6f434c | How the motivation sections should interact in that model | 21:19:32 |
| 7c6f434c | I would want the motivation for the change to be a part of the PR as in branch in VCS, not just GitHub discussion. But also after merging there should be a unified motivation for the entire thing as it exists thereafter | 21:21:10 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Domen Kožar: I'm really hoping that some people will take advantage of this, even though I probably will regret the 'unfiltered' part later :) | 21:21:12 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | yeah that one might have been too far :D | 21:21:29 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I do think it's necessary for this to have any chance of working | 21:21:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | a recurring theme among complaints seems to be "I feel like I would have to walk on eggshells with this proposal" so making it abundantly clear that they don't need to do that here seems.... important :p | 21:22:25 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | Yes, thank you very much for doing this | 21:23:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | of course it's still a matter of whether people trust me with this when they feel that my political views diverge too much from theirs, but I hope I've managed to make the barrier low enough for that | 21:25:07 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * of course it's still a matter of whether people trust me with this when they feel that my political views diverge too much from theirs, but I hope I've managed to make the barrier/risk low enough for that | 21:25:16 |
| 7c6f434c | I interpreted the offer mostly as you being clearly far on political views and offering to work together to see how much of the conflict is more of a need for some safeguards/removal of excessively coded language/explicit writing down some implied things to avoid drift. | 21:33:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 7c6f434c: "clearly far"? that is a typo I think? | 21:35:58 |
| 7c6f434c | My failure at grammar, I guess. Obviously quite far from those having the most issues with the current version of the RFC text. | 21:37:41 |
|  ryantm joined the room. | 23:03:39 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | 
Download image.png | 23:09:06 |
