Re: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] ext/gd 2.4 — co dec sync, Gd\* OOP API, 2D vector/canvas

Hi Pierre, I should probably make this my last reply in this thread and see if others have anything to add, but I wanted to pick up on one point: On 23 July 2026 04:35:36 BST, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: >It makes it as nothing is being actually reviewed but rejected >straight down due to policies. Hence my bureaucracy statement. I think if this was a small RFC, and people were refusing to read it because of a technicality, that criticism would be justified. But I'm not sure it's entirely fair in this case. There are maybe twenty sections describing details of the proposal, and the crude "reading time" estimate in Firefox is 47-60 minutes. It may be clear in your head that most of this is uncontroversial, but for anyone else to even make that judgement requires investing a reasonable amount of time. For many people, spending that time means spending less time on a different discussion. So it's not necessarily about bureaucracy, but a pragmatic decision: it's better to spend time now discussing proposals which are definitely targeting 8.6, and spend time later on proposals which will end up in 8.7. That trade-off changes if we need to spend time deciding on the target version based on the content of each proposal, which is why I support the idea of a simple rule that everyone agrees in advance. I do think there's an entirely separate question of *when* that hard cut-off should be. Should RFCs be allowed all the way through the alpha period? Should the alpha period be shorter, or later in some way? I've never been involved enough in the process to answer those questions. Regards, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]