<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 19, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Joachim Breitner <<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" class="">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">we could rename it to “no-decision-needed” or something like that?</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Well, it depends on the subject. If someone posts a proposal describing a new field in a cabal file, that's out of scope. But somehow this plugin suggestion is different: it solves the kind of problem that other proposals solve, but the solution just happens not to fit the usual format (and is beyond our purview). So maybe we have both "no approval needed" and "out of scope", and apply them in the two different situations.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">All that said, I'd rather not derail this thread further: I'm still keen on figuring out whether Mario's proposal is a better way forward than using a plugin. My instinct -- especially in light of Joachim's questions earlier, which will need answers -- is that a plugin is a lower-stakes way forward. If we support the plugin architecture and we gain experience in light of it, we can consider adding a proper language feature.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Richard</div></body></html>