Don't assume that because you opened up a pull request, that the author will accept it. There are many reasons that a maintainer might choose to not merge in your specific patch, many of which have nothing to do with you. If your patch isn't accepted, try to assume it's for a valid technical reason and not because the author hates you.

Don't get upset, rejection is normal

TRAINING PROGRAM

Moving forward I'd rather see {#await} being removed than adding more {#await}. But that's just from my experience and I'm sure there are use-cases for it.

Babel implements multiple variants of this proposal to help TC39 test and gather feedback from the community. As with all proposals, expect changes in the future.

Sure sometimes my changes get rejected, but it almost always comes with a reason why and I can work together with the maintainer to come up with a sensible solution to my issue.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

The RFC repo (where the reaction was strongly positive) is the place for discussion about what features to add; the decision has been made.

Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.

Yarn also has an RFC process which may offer a better discussion platform compared to this GitHub issue.

Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow. Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Yarn core team. The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.