On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Today Faidon replied on IRC:
(for the benefits of others: I've replied on the RFC itself extensively
before that, this was a reply to prodding on an IRC public channel)
That RFC was created in 2013-10-07 (5+ months ago),
and has not been
finalized nor have I found any resources allocated to this project, so it
might be a while.
Yes, but this is orthogonal to whether it's needed or not, isn't it? In
fact, dedicating a chunk of time to implement /your/ RFC now is actually
going to delay the simplification RFC even further, considering it
requires the same expertise and hence more or less the same people that
will have to deal with both :)
[ I won't get into the details of the requirement itself for that here,
we have the RFC's Talk page & review meetings for that ]
> ... this
is one of the things that as we discussed, we need to plan
ahead in quarterlies
etc.; you can't just drop that on us and start
experimenting, sorry
This project is following the regular steps - I published it on RFC and
posted a proposed code patch. There is no experimentation, only discussion.
The question to which the quote above was a response to was "19:15
<yurikR> paravoid, mark, any further objections to this, or can we start
experimenting?". This is where my "experimentation" comment comes
from.
The RFC was first written one week ago and got comments from me two
hours after it got posted and several times since. My point was/is that
I don't think it's reasonable to expect to drop an RFC with a pretty
significant impact on our infrastructure and a week later pinging us on
IRC asking for "further objections" to start experimenting. We simply
haven't planned for this large chunk of time that you're requesting of
us all of a sudden, including the time for the RFC review itself. This
is not how the RFC process works, anyway: there's RFC review meetings,
it needs to gather comments from others, including the architects, get
accepted and *then* get implemented.
Thanks,
Faidon