On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:24:03PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > As I said, I'm happy the discussion around this RFC is public and open. But > if this is a big enough change for an RFC, then it almost certainly needs to > go through the TU voting procedure.
I'd be happy with having this proposal going through the RFC process and later go through the TU voting if the RFC gets accepted. That seems like a fair compromise to me? -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
