Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > While clearly nothing has been decided on those topics, it seems to me > at least that they follow a pattern of "discussion now, consensus > (hopefully) soon, implementation later". > > Or do you think it's more accurate to say that we rarely/never make > decisions without patches? As I said, I do think it is rare for us to start with only "ideas" without anything concrete to comment on, and that is why I asked some references (e.g., URLs into the archive) to a discussion in the past of a larger decisions where (1) something is proposed, (2) discussed, and (3) declaration that a consensus has reached, if a document describes the status quo. > Does that mean it's pointless to start a > discussion without a patch series attached? It does not necessarily mean it is not worth trying to do it more often that we have done it rarely. Is it desirable to make more larger decisions to implement changes that take longer effort and deeper commitments? As long as we can have a meaningful discussion, the "anything concrete to comment on" I mentioned earlier in the previous paragraph does not have to be a patch series. > I'm trying to decide whether it's worth editing this doc for V2, > or just starting over with a much smaller one instead. And if the lack of documented process is a factor that contributes to the rarity of such decisions, it is a reasonable goal to have a documented process. And learning from past sucesses (and failures) by starting a document that describes the status quo is a good idea.
