Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109092 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 10532 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2020 04:08:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2020 04:08:52 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155551804C5 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:31:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lf1-f48.google.com (mail-lf1-f48.google.com [209.85.167.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f48.google.com with SMTP id u26so3598899lfu.8 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qb2gLiaO7N+OdQHaaTDucv8N7NbZJYsJt4k7EEqq5XM=; b=gIx3lFEnFtGuhZxcO9quSBbl2R5lLcNG8cDgDhDWjfP1tEMh2/zdESmTJaxdWFfjDN yEQU+52ioe29+Rksjn64SrTUjrCOHyeggyKDTHJiD64OQ4i7k+ZiF4iZ/YaxkpMmAXbK mTPG7tRiEZjdZsQ9Plj2Qbp9SccwKUqmRaa6OVMaFCY0nceIO+0N9yeru8x2JawsuSwX 2BwGk1r/l+P4w9ReCv5H5ECm9ug/5r5sNCQbliOGUARFuzHl16mcBUho/HYJoELmrSfw SKzoD/sCpUkYwkVhhaqrvJSV7ycn8X/HkMaZirhVmogcEu0cBcVXPXjyaP1WqLyatHAd 5/uw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0xoppSBX2HaWoP7sRJ+5kzYrEzGiFqldnkbDojc1SAzlK+pp+f 6PmAM4j0yHyf3u3qwldoYArWaiZMfUai/9OANpY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvzk+yKa9ljfQHhh4UuzR3wZ2K8a95J4Py305FUSzPNSp86ECqqM1g2ZzmqMjjURN6hkN/gmBNHkYngZ220C8c= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:54af:: with SMTP id w15mr1393593lfk.17.1584412280494; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:31:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <14383D05-EA33-4CD2-9648-40AA29A837A5@newclarity.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:31:09 -0500 Message-ID: To: Dan Ackroyd Cc: Mike Schinkel , PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Capturing reasons for votes for historical sake? From: jakob@givoni.dk (Jakob Givoni) On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:20 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > * Explaining exactly why you're voting no can be hard as there can be > multiple overlapping reasons for voting no. > > * It sets up arguments about what is and isn't a valid reason for voting no. > > * It drives people who might want to vote no away from the project, if > they have to take the extra time to justify their position. Maybe a list of standard answers to choose from could be a good compromise: - Don't like the syntax - Don't find the feature useful - Limits future changes - There are better solutions - Is complicated to implement - Breaks backwards compatibility - Prefer not to say All are valid reasons for voting no. If there are multiple applicable reasons, just pick one. Or allow picking multiple? If having to pick one of these is enough to drive people away, maybe it's for the best... ;-D > For some RFCs, there just isn't a good path forward for them. Even so, giving a reason for voting no will make that much clearer, and maybe stop more RFCs in their tracks. > btw I think there's a bigger problem on some RFCs being accepted, > particularly where people who aren't core maintainers are voting on > things that really need an informed understanding of internals. True, - but likewise, there are purist who don't use PHP in the real world and reject something pragmatic because it's not fancy enough. It's important to be humble in a democracy. Best regards, Jakob