Re: RE: High resolution timer function

Definitely. Small, uncontroversial changes have never required an RFC. Let's not add process just for the sake of process. -Rasmus On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 January 2018 at 10:38, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote: > > > On 2 January 2018 at 13:55, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why is this bypassing the RFC process? > > > > That's a very good question. > > > > Although I'm pretty sure an RFC for this would pass unanimously, stuff > > should have to go through voting rather than relying on no-one > > shouting loudly enough. > > > > > Just as a counter-point to this, I understand that many (Westminster > style?) parliaments have mechanisms to skip uncontroversial votes by first > requiring a show of hands or voices, and only "dividing the house" (making > everyone get up and register their formal votes) if there is dissent. > > I think Anatol's intent here is similar: if anyone says "Nay", we can > proceed with an RFC and vote; but if it's already unanimous, why spend the > time, when we could be moving onto other business? > > Regards, > -- > Rowan Collins > [IMSoP] >