Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109142 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 94672 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2020 12:34:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2020 12:34:59 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA185180509 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:58:07 -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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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-ua1-f50.google.com (mail-ua1-f50.google.com [209.85.222.50]) (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 ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua1-f50.google.com with SMTP id q24so591054ual.10 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:58:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=basereality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gb4igrop2WAO8gGGAySDxryCYyygcQc/dXw7axr0Yno=; b=gmmEzsiMKyrMRqjcjZFdb2a05OdXHRDEDjfQCg2uK5VO8nPD+jAwQIo3u1TBaOmkwR yEVLpwgAmm9h8R4PRPMIAo36v3hX3U9xl584S1CTvFBW56cP6/BsfNDhNhrgaRBTbov3 pXbhu+X5s76Ej9/1VStphZntsPy8cgoB1jRCLmSeVGhSsQL6G57MUAkdRXxB5GKqXbms X2ZdiNAUipcfB1BZ1RSOdotih1MYzTzi/G3z8lHEVq9U8q70v5fQdF6gndlG9uIHuVpt vhsPXg9tql1OmsS8terEj2+c790CEwi/Y+wZKRQWOms+KdLWIA57iKxRAT4e5Lrc8II0 bZ4A== 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=gb4igrop2WAO8gGGAySDxryCYyygcQc/dXw7axr0Yno=; b=N8bI4Q/cjS4ZHM4Uk1obCwcRBjTyl02OxfqvdOMZW/748VWcXJIGJfZvODUEpH3L5y J3KmfGWbaAL9HB88l8Um+c26vdWZDRyEa2jCckPx8aeA3IoMyyEOIf2ChXSrIx5C+Gm1 T6Cv/CnmfJyFDdVR1AjVPe25BgbgyVVmAMKDgzt5dxPMmykF7vC8p1ha+PRvh1jpL1Em KTfU7PAEg3kb4RzNlpi++jwzVn8bsNvAjZH4lYBzEcYI3GDgdkemYIjTjrP6NSWDpbAd EOEjRbIhQhU+R9MmHc7wbltTtEje81Bo5QbM218/VKnej1DcpbamU/JjYrzHuHa1Qbs7 J8eA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2U1HbokZHl/KNb+8cxC/gxI78uMJKQtNxRIcKbglhTbpvxCgzc PEF52TeuPpAhqD7hCwsOShkdrtpTYeVNJdOtUhAAvw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsi7WCxYPdIcsCGszR11ySqwViHXpETzvETyGx1FyA8FoMd4NVDay3h6vY4uFWMCGX4knYr4IQ42hYRXNkq4w0= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:770b:: with SMTP id z11mr1303037uaq.101.1584615484261; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:58:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <14383D05-EA33-4CD2-9648-40AA29A837A5@newclarity.net> <5e72b9a7.1c69fb81.7d447.f4f1SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <5e733048.1c69fb81.553c1.7610SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <5e733048.1c69fb81.553c1.7610SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:57:53 +0000 Message-ID: To: Mark Randall Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Capturing reasons for votes for historical sake? From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) Danack wrote: > > It sets up arguments about what is and isn't a valid reason for voting no. In case anyone was wondering if this was a vague or actual concern: Mark Randall wrote: > > it should be up to the community to decide if people are trying to > deliberately flout the spirit of that requirement and take action > accordingly. This type of argument leads us on a path to personal attacks. Optionally having some space to record people's reasons for voting either way might be useful. Requiring people to justify their reasons is going to lead to massive non-productive arguments, or even people being harassed for voting 'wrong'. And I agree with Levi, voting "no" should not require any more effort than voting "yes". This thread has focused on people voting no. Although I disagree with some decisions people make, I can't see a large problem of RFCs that have been declined without reasonable reasons. If anything, the problem is the other way round, with people who are not core maintainers, voting yes on things that they can't fully comprehend, and won't be the ones doing the maintenance work for the RFC. But I don't think asking people to prove that they've fully understood an RFC is a useful thing to do. cheers Dan Ack