Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104083
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c-auGYVhCzt-1GpdU1-uZ+xiY7A_FwWSRKftuKBwtszYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-auGYVhCzt-1GpdU1-uZ+xiY7A_FwWSRKftuKBwtszYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 21:18:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuQusKaF7jFe21mLZKTPtP8G==6R9QFw652F-6MyoFgKog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 16:24, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What do you think?

> All RFCs must have a voting period of at least 14 days, announced in a
> separate [VOTE] thread.

That sounds mostly good to me. My feedback would be:

First, I wish people (including RFC authors) took more time to think
about other people's feedback before replying.

There have been some discussions around RFCs where people appear to be
sending email responses within minutes of receiving them, which gives
the appearance of not carefully evaluating that feedback, and trying
to dominate a conversation through volume.

Without a required discussion period, there could be slightly more
'incentive' for RFC authors to respond as quickly as possible, to 'get
the discussion out the way'.

I can't think of a way to codify rules against this behaviour. But
perhaps it could be noted in an updated RFC document something like
"to allow careful consideration, discussions should be allowed to take
time to resolve. It is more appropriate to send a carefully considered
response the next day, than to send a quick response."


Second, two weeks minimum is still quite short.

This may astound people, but I often go weeks at a time without
wondering what is happening in PHP internals. I believe other people
might also have a life outside of PHP internals.

It should be made really clear to people raising RFCs, that choosing
to have the minimum voting time, particularly if the discussion didn't
seem to produce a clear consensus can be, and possibly should be,
interpreted by voters as a reason to vote against an RFC.

cheers
Dan
Ack