You use the word “we” to refer to two distinct sets of people. On the one hand, you’re using it to refer to the author(s) and audience of the RFC. On the other, you’re using to refer to only the authors. I’d choose one group and stick with it. I’d avoid using the word “we” to discuss beliefs without listing who “we” are, to avoid an impression of equivocation.
Consider lines 35-38:
We can see that this is clearly shorter and that the amount of extra work we have to do scales linearly with the number of inner variants we mention.
“We” refers to the audience (who is seeing), then to the author (who is mentioning). Instead:
This is clearly shorter, and the work scales linearly with the number of inner variants mentioned.
Also consider lines 42-45:
However, as we know, code is read more than it is written. So are we trading readability for increased ergonomics? We believe this is not the case. Instead, this RFC aims to improve the readability of code by reducing the amount of redundant information that needs to be scanned.
Here “we” refers to every user of rust (who may be trading), then to the authors (who are believing). Instead:
As we know, code is read more than it is written. So are we trading readability for increased ergonomics? No. This RFC claims that reducing the amount of redundant information that needs to be scanned improves the readability of code.
Both of the above examples say the same thing, but they don’t attempt to associate the reader with the claims.