> > With regards to CEPs, I personally don't see any value in voting to start > one. > > Agree with this, and I'd go even further - requiring a vote in order to > propose an idea runs so counter to the idea of a CEP that it would default > the purpose of even having them. The CEP is the _proposal_ for a change > that gets fleshed out enough so people can understand the idea and _then_ > vote on it, not the other way around.
Totally agree that CEPs should be as light-weight as possible, and with the sentiments above. But would also like to keep the discussion open to encourage and include as many voices as possible. My _questioning_ is around the value in "initial exposure and discussion". It is implied already that there is lazy consensus in starting a CEP, and that starting a CEP is more than just an initial proposal of an idea. One example is we require a CEP to have a Shepherd that is a PMC member. Encouraging a vote, or better-yet keeping it light-weight: an initial DISCUSS thread as early as possible in the CEP lifecycle does come with value. From openly calling out for a Shepherd, to allowing the more experienced community members to add their insight (without having to get formally involved in it), there's potential value in encouraging such open-mode opening discussion early on (versus the cost of additional process). Really interested in hearing from folk from other communities and projects that do CEP/CIP and how their lifecycle through the process works and what they have learnt.