{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigjorpitrctkirmujyr7mudkwwzyradtx2xrprhq5ah6akdw6bxa4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mh34ziasohm2"
  },
  "path": "/t/how-can-we-solve-the-problem-of-unmerged-rfcs-after-their-fcp/24083#post_4",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-15T02:02:32.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "tags": [
    "3161",
    "3641"
  ],
  "textContent": "Agreed, but it's not just that rfc. There's also #3161 and #3641 (the latter even having a comment asking for timeline for merging). I think that this is an issue that should not occur at all.\n\n(I didn't include the mitigation enforcement RFC because it is comparatively recent.)\n\nThe main problem I have with this is the finality of FCPs (_final_ comment periods) not being entirely representative. After a final comment period, where the community has the time to raise objections, the RFC should be merged as a decision has already been made and all concerns already being answered. So after the final comment period, IMO the RFC should be merged as soon as possible (immediately?)",
  "title": "How can we solve the problem of unmerged RFCs after their FCP?"
}