Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106663
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAFPFaML19B_RehrUQLEy_oFae-H5r3+BpUGg=GF1js83cJpJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYWF=4cx_i=3rCfFKeBT0Jq0e4=P0PeY2wd6YEwog_VdA1+Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznzie34C92y2nTRXxhD99FEW-5hmruVatsrLDHcAKvTccQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYWF=7S2SxzxU+TzRV0Rc7FNMvyZBkAENVTNbZKqrs71Uyijw@mail.gmail.com>
 <000001d54e5a$02ac09f0$08041dd0$@roze.lv>
 <2b5588d6-d667-321f-22f1-46a22bb797c5@korulczyk.pl>
 <000001d54ea3$eb3480a0$c19d81e0$@roze.lv>
 <ad6b9615-372d-69ba-9ca5-e8fa554c5aea@korulczyk.pl>
 <000301d54ead$b43e7b00$1cbb7100$@roze.lv>
 <59378662-77ca-0779-10cb-c25acf1b45ef@korulczyk.pl>
 <CAKOpQSySEqE4VR+b0Twp4NxZMa+ruEYTbV7qr38Tcw8wqobH2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPFaMKBWEo-MXCP75vFt2JEvNXzLVhW=f2gGaGHSazb1oXK8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0243f600-f4b6-d6fd-9046-968a6a470e51@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 15:47:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFPFaMKBWEo-MXCP75vFt2JEvNXzLVhW=f2gGaGHSazb1oXK8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 20/08/2019 13:51, G. P. B. wrote:
>    - I seriously don't appreciate that the RFC has been edited*WITHOUT*  my
> knowledge to add endorsement names on the counterargument to the RFC on the
> RFC itself  when the appropriate place would have been the counter argument
> document.


While I appreciate that there is a certain implication of "ownership" 
when you are the author of an RFC, it is ultimately a resource for the 
community as a whole to understand the discussion, which is why the 
guide at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto explicitly mentions including 
both positive and negative feedback.

The only problem I can see with other people editing "your" RFC is if 
later readers could mistake the edits for your own opinion; even if the 
whole counter-argument had been a section rather than a separate page, 
it would be clear that readers shouldn't do that. In this case, the only 
edits are to add a list of names, which is basically what the voting 
widget does anyway, so I really can't see any reason to be upset about it.

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]