Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109131
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <14383D05-EA33-4CD2-9648-40AA29A837A5@newclarity.net>
In-Reply-To: <14383D05-EA33-4CD2-9648-40AA29A837A5@newclarity.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 01:22:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJW__o020OgyHEixHUCtgRijhx92OA1vzuKHAF8hRTcAxo1mRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Capturing reasons for votes for historical sake?
From: kalle@php.net (Kalle Sommer Nielsen)

Den man. 16. mar. 2020 kl. 20.29 skrev Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Seeing people referencing former RFCs that failed when someone brings up =
an RFC (which is a good thing to reference, BTW) I am finally compelled to =
comment in hope there would be will to improve it.
>
> When court justices rule on important decisions they write opinions, or j=
oin with the majority or minority opinion. That way judges and others in th=
e future can know why things were decided a certain way.
>
> However in PHP we have no way of knowing why people voted against a propo=
sal except maybe for those very few who commented negatively on the mailing=
 list. Which is far from concise and frequently not conclusive.
>
> It is a real shame that the PHP voting process has no way to capture a co=
ncise description of why people voted against an RFC.  A "No" vote could me=
an any of the following, or something completely different, and their reaso=
ns are really important when it comes to future consideration of the same i=
ssue:
>
> 1. I hate the idea and never want to see it in PHP
> 2. I'm okay with the idea but
>         a. I have a small issue with "x"
>         b. I have a big issue with "y"
>         c. I prefer to see it implemented using "z" approach instead
> 3. I love the idea but
>         a. Can't support it given "x"
>         b. I want it to be implement using "y" approach instead
> 4. We can't do this until we do "x" first
> 5. We should do "x" instead
> 6. Or who knows what other reason?
>
> Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need=
 to type in a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposal =
OR select from the reasons that others have already given when voting down =
the specific RFC?
>
> If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that cho=
ose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.

I am not gonna personally answer a survey everytime I vote against a
feature. This is why we have a discussion period to raise issues, of
course not everyone will raise all their concerns to each and every
RFC (me included, take the annotation RFCS posted over the years, they
are awesome but the one thing I dislike is the syntax). I doubt
everyone have time to go in details and understand to the teeth what
each and every feature does. I instead recommend that you look at Dan
Ackroyd's repository which he linked in his reply.

Similar to him, I'm also fairly against the development of such a feature.

--=20
regards,

Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net