{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreifruwa2dtd5zuxngge3p3zpu7xjcbgjisv2zlu2wfsfkvgzaqymny",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mh3xv32luve2"
  },
  "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 arealready answered. So after the final comment period, IMO RFCs should be merged as soon as possible (immediately?) but they aren't always.",
  "title": "How can we solve the problem of unmerged RFCs after their FCP?"
}