| 29 May 2023 |
 infinisil | piegames: Oh can you also indicate in your FCP comment that all shepherds have accepted the RFC? | 15:55:30 |
| infinisil | piegames: Oh and also indicate that FCP hasn't started officially because we're waiting on the steering committee. The 10 days should only start once the discourse announcement is made | 15:57:09 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | Yeah, that too is one of the things that are kind of underspecified IMO | 15:58:01 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Currently collecting these for a separate forum post about our process, to hopefully get them fixed this time | 15:58:28 |
| infinisil | I think it should be an RFC to amend the RFC process :P | 15:59:10 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I know, wouldn't be the first one | 15:59:34 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | always start a discussion first though | 15:59:37 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Also I honestly don't want to write yet another RFC at the moment . | 15:59:59 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * Also I honestly don't want to write yet another RFC at the moment … | 16:00:00 |
| infinisil | Frankly, the RFC process having some flaws is minor compared to actually resolving controversy in the content of RFC's | 16:00:44 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | I think it makes sense for a different group to decide FCP. It's an essential part of the process that gives legitimacy to the process and therefore the RFC. We shouldn't be able to push an RFC through by declaring FCP before resolving questions. Whether questions have been resolved reasonably can therefore only be decided by a separate group, which is the RFC committee. | 16:04:18 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Robert Hensing (roberth) I think your statement strongly depends on the perspective and role in which you view an RFC's shepherds | 16:05:44 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | Changing that would speed up the RFC process by perhaps two weeks on average, at the cost of the legitimacy of RFCs in general. | 16:05:52 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Because one could also argue that this precisely the shepherds' job. | 16:06:26 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | piegames yeah, the shepherd could take such an "independent" role, but I don't know if that happens | 16:06:36 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | clearly in our case there's some doubt about that | 16:06:43 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Not that I fundamentally disagree with you, it's just that I think that the process should be clear about it either way | 16:06:53 |
| infinisil | Yeah I think it's the intention for shepherds to be this. The steering committe should pick shepherds of as different views as possible. | 16:07:00 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | I suppose the same thing could be achieved by having the steering committee approve FCP async, as FCP by itself has very little lasting effect | 16:08:25 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | It's RFC acceptance that matters | 16:08:36 |
| infinisil | I think effectively FCP means acceptance nowadays, because there's no reason to FCP if it wouldn't be accepted. So FCP = 10 days to acceptance | 16:09:51 |
| infinisil | * I think effectively FCP means acceptance, because there's no reason to FCP if it wouldn't be accepted. So FCP = 10 days to acceptance | 16:10:10 |
| infinisil | Oh and there's generally no major new feedback during FCP which would cancel the FCP | 16:11:06 |
| infinisil | (or has this ever happened?) | 16:11:21 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | RFC 127 🙃 | 16:11:37 |
