[RFC 0071] Retired Committers Amendment

[worldofpeace]

Rendered

[worldofpeace]

#55 (comment)

[blaggacao]

Meta topic:

Albeit

Submit a pull request. Rename the rfcs with the PR number. (eg: PR #123 would be rfcs/0123-my-feature.md)

in my experience it would be better to directly amend. git keeps the audit logs anyway.

[asymmetric]

Bikeshedding mode: past or former both sound better to me than retired. Retired makes me thinks of retirees, i.e. old people who stopped working.

[samueldr]

in my experience it would be better to directly amend. git keeps the audit logs anyway.

The README already states:

In general, once accepted, RFCs should not be substantially changed. Only very minor changes should be submitted as amendments. More substantial changes should be new RFCs, with a note added to the original RFC. Exactly what counts as a "very minor change" is up to the RFC Shepherd Team of the RFC to be amended, to be decided in cooperation with the RFC Steering Committee.

This might be sitting firmly on the fence of "substantial change". The original RFC being relatively thin in contents (and rightly so), this does change what is definitely arguably a portion of it.

This is probably a situation where when there is doubt, prefer sending an RFC so the full process can be followed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[worldofpeace]

Bikeshedding mode: past or former both sound better to me than retired. Retired makes me thinks of retirees, i.e. old people who stopped working.

A nice thing that @grahamc mentioned was that neither of those can have an honor designation like the former word emiritus. An example is someone returning from retirement, and they're an esteemed person.

[lheckemann]

This RFC is now open for shepherd nominations.

I nominate myself.

[worldofpeace]

I'd also want to nominate the author of the RFC this amends @tilpner, and I guess @alyssais.
You can probably tell that the time commitment for this one is super low, you really could comment a yes/no 😁

[tilpner]

I'm not particularly attached to the team name of #55, and this RFC sounds sensible to me.
There are no open questions from my side, and I would be in favor of accepting it.

[alyssais]

I'd also want to nominate the author of the RFC this amends @tilpner, and I guess @alyssais. You can probably tell that the time commitment for this one is super low, you really could comment a yes/no 😁

Nomination accepted. FWIW: I think trying to follow Latin grammer rules in English is silly -- there's a reason we don't say "octopodes", following the rules for the original Greek -- but the accessible English point stands. I'm in favour of accepting the RFC.

[worldofpeace]

We've accepted the nominations for shepherds @lheckemann @tilpner @alyssais, and our leader is @tilpner.
This is now in discussion.

[worldofpeace]

Everyone has already pre-approved on this RFC. Perhaps the shepherds can comment we could move to FCP?
@lheckemann @tilpner @alyssais

[lheckemann]

I'm go for FCP, @tilpner / @alyssais ?

[alyssais]

I'm go for FCP, @tilpner / @alyssais ?

+1

[tilpner]

Yes, please go ahead to FCP.

[worldofpeace]

Cool, motion for FCP with a disposition to merge.