Ahh, I see – sorry for the misunderstanding. In that case, I suspect this will vary quite a bit by subteam. Prior to subteams, the core team maintained a list of RFCs in an etherpad that were essentially in a FCP-like state, with r+, r-, or abstain for each member (where r- requires commentary on the RFC itself, of course) – basically a simple way of asynchronously gauging rough consensus within the team. It still required pinging people to put down their state, and in some cases knowledge that a given person was unlikely to be interested so things could proceed without them.
Part of the role we had envisioned for subteam leader was handling precisely this kind of thing – having a little bit more global view, sense for people’s availability and interests, and thus ability to say with reasonable confidence “consensus has been reached, let’s move forward”.
I’m not sure how formal all of this needs to be, nor how common it will be for us to be in such a hurry to merge an RFC/amendment, but maybe some of the above could be adapted. (It’s also useful, for meatier RFCs, for gauging when to enter the FCP in the first place.)
