Marco Deleu
> >> You may have core developers that voted no due to maintenance burden, but if >> said maintainer is no longer active and new maintainers don't mind it, it's >> a moot argument because people changed. > > The maintenance burden argument is actually a good example of *not* being > about individuals. The argument is not "I don't want to maintain it", it's > "we shouldn't burden future maintainers with this". I don't agree that maintainers 10 years ago choosing to not "burden future maintainers with this" is more valid than current maintainers choosing otherwise. As I said, too much has changed and so has the weight of the burden (for better or worse). > All I'm asking is that if we are going to revisit features we previously > rejected, we start with "here's why I think the arguments for and against > this feature have changed", rather than "I don't like the old result, I > demand a new vote". You think a good place to start is to pinpoint what changed. I think that in 10 years *everything* has changed. I wasn't giving a list of possible abstracts" for us to discuss each of them, I was pointing out how easy it is to come up with multiple reasons why a new vote might go a different direction. I don't like the old result but I don't think there is any "demanding a new vote". There is simply new people interested in something that coincidentally happened to have had an interest a decade ago.
