Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106386
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 13:33:19 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuSOL38aEmru5_YpnQpfVcZTAAZ-D9wQvgeb42fojDcZ=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuSOL38aEmru5_YpnQpfVcZTAAZ-D9wQvgeb42fojDcZ=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <9A71CBB7-8F0B-40E4-B90E-60108FA52D7D@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Improve visibility of RFC negative feedback
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 5 August 2019 14:33:53 BST, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality=2Ecom> wrote=
:
>When someone creates an RFC, near the top of that page they should
>create a link to a separate page that will contain negative feedback=2E
>People other that the RFC author are free to put whatever negative
>feedback think is appropriate on that 'negative feedback' page=2E

Hi Dan,

I think this is a really sensible idea=2E=20

The key difference between an RFC and a discussion thread is that it prese=
nts a summary or synthesis, which can be much more easily digested than a f=
ull discussion=2E It is also, crucially, editable, so can be reworded or co=
rrected to clarify points; in an email thread, a reader often has to read t=
he first attempt at conveying something, then follow a series of errata dow=
n the sub-thread=2E

As Zeev mentioned, it might be enough to have a standard format for this, =
rather than always requiring it=2E=20

I also think the term "negative feedback" might be a bit =2E=2E=2E negativ=
e=2E Elsewhere in your message, you used "dissenting", which I think captur=
es the essence better=2E The difference from the main page is not inherentl=
y about positive vs negative, but about allowing different voices=2E

Regards,

--=20
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]