We are a community of volunteers. We collaborate in our mutual interests, respecting each other despite occasional difference in values, and default to assuming good faith in our interactions.
We handle each other’s attentive resources with care: Speakers are brief, listeners are patient, and both are considerate.
Everyone is invited to lead by action. We ask informed questions, document our findings, gather consensus, and make pull requests to facilitate change.
As much as we encourage advancing one pull request at a time, we owe each contributor a timely and considerate appreciation of their work.
However, we are also in a situation, where our resources are limited. We acknowledge that this inevitably frustrates our advancements and our community as a whole.
Nonetheless, we all assume responsibility for progress and feel entitled to pro-actively promote effective review and merging.
We propose small changes and see if anyone objects.
We think of our changes in two broad categories:
- On one end, we identify pareto-improvents that are uncontroversial since they don’t make anyone worse off.
- On the other end, we observe true trade-off decisions which generally shall gather consensus if they generate a net positive impact.
We make decisions (or refuse to!) on high stake matters by the RFC process.