On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:08 PM Reinis Rozitis <r...@roze.lv> wrote: > Also imo the reason why people write now (and not in the discussion > phase) because for some time in the voting there wasn't the 2/3 majority > for the 7.4 (so no sense to clutter the list) and now in the end only 1-2 > votes make the difference. > > At least for me, this definitely was the case. When I voted, it was nowhere near clearing the 2/3 threshold.
As I said numerous times in the past, I'm a firm believer that controversial RFCs (ones that generate a lot of votes with a substantial number of opposers) should not pass. I think this is important when adding features - but it's actually a lot more important with deprecations. When there's substantial doubt whether a deprecation should go through or not, there should be no doubt at all - it shouldn't. This is one of the clearest cases if not the clearest one we've had to date. Process wise we're in a bit of an unchartered territory here, but I don't think we should let the headache involved with figuring out how to reverse this decision force us to impose this on our users. It's better to go through this unpleasantry now than deal with the backlash later. George, please consider reopening the vote for an extra week. That is probably the simplest way to move forward from a process standpoint. Zeev
