RFC Process: Should we hold two different votes?

Good evening, A lot of RFCs have been rejected because, while they proposed a feature people would like, the details were problematic. This has lead to these features sometimes being considerably delayed. So, in order to do something about this, here’s an idea: Why not hold two different votes on an RFC, similar to how legislation is passed in the UK’s House of Commons? The first is on whether the general principle of the RFC is sound. Once that’s passed, it’s clear the feature is wanted, so time can then be spent scrutinising the details of the proposal and making them acceptable. Then, a second vote can be held, which approves the RFC as a whole, and its patch (like our current votes do). This way: * Authors know quickly whether a feature has sufficient support (reading internals doesn’t necessarily tell you anything, as votes and numbers of positive/negative emails rarely align), without having to necessarily have done everything before the final vote * Bad ideas are rejected sooner * Good ideas with flawed implementations may succeed in the first vote and fail in the second, meaning there’s a clear agreement that it’s wanted but not with this implementation, allowing another RFC with an improved approach to perhaps be made later Does this sound like a good idea? Thanks! -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/