| 29 May 2023 |
 infinisil | We're talking about situations where: The standard needs a small uncontroversial change, the NAT team does not exist anymore, there's enforced protection of changes to the standard | 11:47:57 |
 Alyssa Ross | RFCs are difficult to change later, so it's really important to get what goes into them right | 11:48:18 |
| infinisil | If the standard is controversial -> RFC; if the NAT does still exist -> just wait for approval; if there's no enforced protection -> just change the files, if the NAT doesn't exist anymore, nobody would complain | 11:48:58 |
| infinisil | And if all three are the case, talk to a NixOS org admin to remove the restriction | 11:49:56 |
| Alyssa Ross | oh I think we might be at crossed wires here | 11:50:08 |
| Alyssa Ross | piegames said "if you really want to then put that into the RFC" | 11:50:22 |
| Alyssa Ross | but I now notice you didn't actually mention putting this in the RFC | 11:50:30 |
| infinisil | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Hmm, how about "This RFC describes the initial standard. The up-to-date standard will be in the Nixpkgs manual. Smaller changes to the standard may be performed by the Nixpkgs Architecture Team without an RFC, while larger changes will need another RFC" Alyssa Ross: This here | 11:50:50 |
| Alyssa Ross | Would "Smaller changes to the standard may be performed without an RFC" work for you? | 11:52:10 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | I'm struggling to imagine any changes that are "minor" in scope yet would be controversial enough to warrant a discussion with the NAT | 11:52:37 |
| infinisil | I think changes being uncontroversial means that the NAT will accept them, and them being uncontroversial the opposite | 11:53:19 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Okay, then I'm struggling to imagine a minor but controversial change in this context | 11:53:53 |
| infinisil | Yeah that wouldn't exist then, any minor change would be accepted by the NAT | 11:54:18 |
