Hi,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. <george.banyard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation
> approach." meaning that the previous one is void.
> I don't know why this is ambiguous and needs to be said once again.
>
As far as I know, there's been no vote to cancel the previously
accepted RFC, so ... even though I didn't like the outcome of it, I
don't understand how it is just made void now. It's pretty easy to
understand the ambiguity.
I won't be voting on this one due to all of this.
Cheers,
Andrey.