Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104936
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w=jvzV=GgUCBy34JKOFtKy8FrGfOjHuer_JrSMmGrcDnWpjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:24:27 +0100
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1D4D58A6-DCF2-449E-9219-8F036B70E50A@heigl.org>
References: <CA+kxMuQnOre3NTb2A2Hcgs1UakiD2g3ZCzXUO4sNBYjiQh75GA@mail.gmail.com> <CALKiJKoq26MFetzZr27caW61nMvywdRSG1Gn3U=so4+8CuvvVw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+kxMuQ9HuNcvgvgiyFG_qDJuyfZxmuqdDuWezstPK=eyR0xxw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+w=jvzV=GgUCBy34JKOFtKy8FrGfOjHuer_JrSMmGrcDnWpjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Process: more productive conversations
From: andreas@heigl.org (Andreas Heigl)



> Am 25.03.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>:
>=20
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:02, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:=

>>=20
>> I don't believe forcing people to explain their votes actually does that.=

>>=20
>> It does something quite similar, of forcing people to try to
>> articulate how the RFC needs to change for them to change their vote
>> from a no to a yes. At least that is how I have perceived the
>> intentions of people who have asked for 'no' voters to explain their
>> vote.
>>=20
>=20
> It also ties in with the view previously expressed that we should restrict=

> voting rights because (my paraphrase) "too many people can vote for
> something they don't understand and won't have to maintain".
>=20
> Asking people to say why they voted the way they did helps explore this:
> can people give a cogent reason for their vote?

Shall we then also expect people that vote "yes" to explain why they voted f=
or the feature? To see whether they understood what they where voting on?

Then we should couple the vote to a comment in the wikinpage and without a c=
omment there's no way to vote.=20

That way all the information would be readily available in the RFC and no on=
e would need to add comments after an RFC was voted upon. Because IMO that i=
nformation as well as the process that lead to acceptance of the RFC are als=
o important to afterwards make clear why that feature was implememted the wa=
y it was. So all RFCs and also all voters would be treated the same.

Just my 0.02=E2=82=AC

Cheers

Andreas=20