On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 18:52, Erick de Azevedo Lima < ericklima.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Reminder to not run into a sunk cost fallacy. > > My main point was not the cost/work itself, but the fact that big concerns > should be raised ASAP, and not on the 11th hour, as Robert said. > Whether we like it or not, the voting right beholders' concerns should be > taken into account with "special attention", because, well... > They are the ones that, in the end, decide if your RFC will make it to the > language or not. > So having no negative feedback or having it only at the last minute before > voting is not good at all. > I think doing this and voting for a "no" for a feature that was so well > received and discussed extensively by the internalians discourages > OSS developers from contributing to the language we care so much about. > Agreed, but to give you some more context: * I know JRF has been holding off feedback about it for a long time, waiting for the RFC to be more "stable" (i.e. not being a moving flubber) before posting thoughts * I personally usually only get into RFCs very early on (when I have a clear idea/opinion formed on a topic upfront) or at the end, when the RFC has gone through the ironing out a lot: the in-between is a brawl for which 24h/day aren't sufficient. The nature of email threads in a mailing list makes RFCs extremely hard to approach anything that is "in-flight". Marco Pivetta https://mastodon.social/@ocramius https://ocramius.github.io/
