On 20/07/2025 02:58, Nick wrote: > > Hey Niels, > Hey Nick
> > In before: I personally didn’t have a problem with Tim joining in late. > > > I, however, want to express that I don’t feel anything productive happens at > this point. > > > My personal impression is, there wasn’t anything new added since the early > beginning of the discussion. > > Everything was brought up early on. If you believe that’s not the case and I > missed something, please point me to the new arguments. No new arguments came as the concerns have been sent out earlier indeed. Lately the discussion seems more geared towards the expectations of the users of readonly, and what that means for the set hook. > > > So, calling it “not wound down” feels off to me. And that’s why I answer now. > > > As someone who is a new participant here, please allow me to ask: > > > When is a discussion allowed to be considered wound down? This has never been defined and always has a subjective part. In general, no one will block you from bringing it to a vote if no substantial changes have been made to the RFC and the discussion lasted at least 2 weeks. > > And, is repeating the same arguments (just by different persons) really a > reason to keep a discussion going? > No, but it isn't bad to point out some things right before the vote. > > The whole controversy is about `get`. > That's true. Note though that the fact that the RFC still includes this does show a non-consensus from the authors PoV. Either you fully stand behind your own RFC and wouldn't have split the vote, or you agreed that the get hook is a bad idea. In the latter case, why even include this still in the RFC text, especially after Larry said he's positive that part won't pass? This comes across as really wanting something of the RFC to pass, not aiming for the best "solution". > > We addressed this by switching to a split vote, because literally all those > concerns/opinions (allow it; don’t allow it; add `init` instead; cache it; > don’t cache it) can _for now_ be “addressed” with a “no”-vote on `get`, and > then follow up with a new `get` RFC later. > It's important to plan for the future and come up with a holistic solution. I don't want to end up in a situation where in hindsight we shouldn't have allowed a "set hook" for example and should've just left readonly alone. > > Am I wrong? > > > What is this all about now? > > What are we doing now? > > > Do we keep repeating the same arguments, and disallow bringing this to vote > at all? Even though like literally everyone seems to be on board with “`set` > is ok”? I believe I answered this, but just to make it extra clear: you are allowed to bring this to a vote, no one can veto you for that. I don't believe everyone (who replied) is pro "set hook". And definitely not in other channels. > > Or are we allowed to move on with a vote? > > >> despite there being no clear consensus > > > The clear consensus seems to be that `set` should be allowed. That’s why we > adjusted the vote. > > I repeat: everyone with a problem (any kind) on `get` can vote “no” on `get` > and “yes” on `set`. I believe I answered this above already. > > > — > > > Again, this is nothing specifically towards Tim. > > > *Cheers,* > > Nick > I'll end with saying that this should not discourage you from interacting with the ML. You got a bit "unlucky" with the subjects you chose as both hooks and readonly are a bit controversial topics to begin with. Kind regards Niels
