Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Changes in V3: > * Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale > patch series. I do not think I deserve Co-authorship for the small changes in the remaining document, as my contributions going from v2 to v3 were mostly line removal ;-). > +Larger Discussions (with patches) > +--------------------------------- Reads well and looks sensible. > +Larger Discussions (without patches) > +------------------------------------ > +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series. > +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of > +... I do not know how strongly assertive you wanted to be, but I suspect that it will read better with "might" -> "may". > ... > +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation, > +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any > +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to > +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation > +that can be more easily debated. It is a bit fuzzy what "other specific implementation" wants to convey. A mere "RFC" is often an unfinished work-in-progress, and if the "other specific implementation" is different from it, then what it would be? A minimum viable product? A proof-of-concept? All other parts did read very well. Not that the above was unreadable, but just my reading hiccupped at around "other specific implementation". Thanks.
