4 ms·

> This development work is already completed. You're prevaricating. Earlier: > they need to replace the RFC I linked to with one that explicitly says what to

by cxr 6mo ago

> This development work is already completed. You're prevaricating. Earlier: > they need to replace the RFC I linked to with one that explicitly says what to do or not do Do they need to work on getting the RFC to be more explicit about the correct behavior or not?

Bender 6mo ago
It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to replace the RFC with a new one and then work with the existing web daemon developers to change their defaults. There should also be an effort to communicate these changes to all the internet companies world wide long in advance as this will be a breaking change for many people. Perhaps I am just jaded but I think this will break a lot of stuff and cause a lot of really bad maintenance windows and other fallout. Who among the developers is willing to take the lead on this? You appear to be very articulate and astute. Are you taking the lead?
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  If cxr takes the lead, I'll be happy to help too. I don't have much time but I can provide some support in this monumental struggle.
- cxr 6mo ago
  > It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to[…] That's not what I asked. In one breath, you've said they need to take up that effort. In the next breath, you've said that it's a done deal. I'm asking: which is it? Making up your mind (instead of perpetually moving the goalposts) is up to you.
  - Timwi 6mo ago
    I believe you misunderstood them. The way I interpreted it is: 1) the development is already done, so the developers have broad consensus on how it should work; 2) the only thing that can break that consensus is a new RFC that tells them in no uncertain terms to do it differently.

4 ms·

> This development work is already completed. You're prevaricating. Earlier: > they need to replace the RFC I linked to with one that explicitly says what to

by cxr 6mo ago

Bender 6mo ago
It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to replace the RFC with a new one and then work with the existing web daemon developers to change their defaults. There should also be an effort to communicate these changes to all the internet companies world wide long in advance as this will be a breaking change for many people. Perhaps I am just jaded but I think this will break a lot of stuff and cause a lot of really bad maintenance windows and other fallout. Who among the developers is willing to take the lead on this? You appear to be very articulate and astute. Are you taking the lead?
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  If cxr takes the lead, I'll be happy to help too. I don't have much time but I can provide some support in this monumental struggle.
- cxr 6mo ago
  > It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to[…] That's not what I asked. In one breath, you've said they need to take up that effort. In the next breath, you've said that it's a done deal. I'm asking: which is it? Making up your mind (instead of perpetually moving the goalposts) is up to you.
  - Timwi 6mo ago
    I believe you misunderstood them. The way I interpreted it is: 1) the development is already done, so the developers have broad consensus on how it should work; 2) the only thing that can break that consensus is a new RFC that tells them in no uncertain terms to do it differently.