Re: [VOTE] include cleanup

On 2023/02/09 19:04, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote: > However based on the discussion of the RFC I believe that voters may have > assumed that a "No" means "A cleanup is not allowed", because several > participants expressed an active aversion to a cleanup during the > discussion. As for myself I've certainly had that understanding when casting > my vote. Voting "NO" means no change - and currently, cleanup is not allowed, which you can see from the fact that all of my code cleanups were either rejected or reverted. > Disallowing a clean-up would require 33% of votes, whereas allowing > clean-up would require 66% of votes. The status quo "decide on a > case by case basis" would no longer be legal even without a clear > agreement. It is indeed unfortunate that a supermajority is required for all primary votes, because in this case, requiring only a simple majority would be favorable IMO. It is not clear whether the current rule is "decide on a case by case basis"; it has been argued that my code cleanup shall be rejected/reverted because that would make merging branches harder. - If that alone is reason enough to reject/revert a code cleanup change, then this applies to all kinds of code cleanup, and no code cleanup is currently allowed. -> "case by case" doesn't count. - If that alone is NOT reason enough to reject/revert a code cleanup, then more reasons need to be brought forward to hold my code cleanups off. Max