Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109159
To: Mark Randall <marandall@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <14383D05-EA33-4CD2-9648-40AA29A837A5@newclarity.net>
 <CAJW__o020OgyHEixHUCtgRijhx92OA1vzuKHAF8hRTcAxo1mRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5e72b9a7.1c69fb81.7d447.f4f1SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAAKU0u=548NGynGnLbQO6N84g2NSiLq1zK7X6MF-QwByzqtf=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5e73304d.1c69fb81.7ae48.890cSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAJW__o25fD1S7XEYYg0oMAmkKL_d30H0vaqdOAvtMDDUQteYzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5e738dce.1c69fb81.40b8f.3691SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Autocrypt: addr=smalyshev@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsJuBE9mqaARCACFSqcGmNunkjQQu3X+yXnTmFeEkvM4JXZTOBdR8aEevNGmmFEfyvjaDjWi
 9hcwp4E/lYtC+P7VsVjM1OSX9eq0jC/lGL0ZyRXek+mNy0n5H1NSuTpf9Y18LMqhc4G+RU+L
 cNiZ9K0DJuOOvNLPxW7OHZguxb3wdKPXNVa2jyRfJAKm2uaJJMT1mTmFT9a0Q8SKr+mUrrJk
 uG0H2o6SzrKt8Wwoint1eh67zVsJaJtQFchnEZnlawIcqP2yC4nLGR3MkubowxoEBYCZet18
 aHVVRbvpG2Qtob8Lu5xrsGbmXymTkHTdpvkfcJFADa8MzOL90zOxXwbGfbIZOlh5En8jAQCX
 lfnx2eQL3BSW/6XANa51dbWiEp1d1BAkpGKtZvlk0Qf+M9WAi+9aXMe3xP5krxtgnRNUf2WN
 6Zdy2MxL1RRJCFbytLhl0ronC49BsGYVGshdEH8xhBbiIOJKuVZ/DTl9bEm7P9c7CC7iJyVC
 khUAhouH6xzZQNLR+RU+QebYzXypVfl99Qk7EdMmr/WAZCHLuvanyqepC5EBsa3VnAfQemSN
 oBeGBKWWLiOsPjvS72+y1z4RUMAfXHn4l/sFMt8zt7/74AmJPwZquV41p4mPO12V4+xPyc6R
 sB84sfsk2QVivU8w8AkvGQeYjXoz7Iwao95+fWteVzZ36KRQvUckP8pGjHlDXnHxJ0HI1I/k
 OBZSjwRwUf0dd73y6erPhbLk+gf+NdI3H9KGJBzG5/rVyWKwUeQ9d5ud4jTJRkQGvAP5pg76
 vEa9dogbpe4W5Z+0BfbiJSnQmQWSHiZddj/t33ptbup44Ck6ZTgdlmFYMLF1hR47PIZTDKER
 EuKYGci/vq8snZvEJP9YCw/TtiHcMdrMKcY/+Lp8lQO0GHLPB9glVhnC0db6l1Xpg1CMI8/R
 ozBMcij30EgATggC/y2zbiqAFoS9FN9nXPbe4phStqABEyeZ+nXudt7PUYTjVgcrqo8bHZCi
 sBobWC7OnKyUzxVxzUeuPkIfmZuzkLaMw2McQdvwwsNvQ0DzaLP30c1Xsm/7EIYJcOWpzlVJ
 5QrdmE0/Bc0yU3RhbmlzbGF2IE1hbHlzaGV2IChQSFAga2V5KSA8c21hbHlzaGV2QGdtYWls
 LmNvbT7CegQTEQgAIgUCT2aqtAIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQL3lW
 vF2gS12XMwD9HuRIolSwIK77u8EY461y2u6sbX36n5/uo/LDQuxoi3sA/0MvpnvzOhv9Iufv
 vsZEj3E7i3h+iD5648YMwfTFCij+zsFNBE9mqaAQCADfZPMpjZkkGZj3BY/7ApoLq4mwqzbh
 +CpLXwNn20tFNvSXfb8RdeXvVEb7Scx+W9qYpiaun2iXJgCVH8fgpZpR856ulT1q6uCG++CX
 ubEvip/eJkZl93/84h04KQJwsgOrAh0Om3OePRn8Pr+++0LNS0EL8uX/YHeTOGOnnmTqYTey
 SBVFdov6L4mepddfjekicKQqhL7mZh/xuq29JijT0uNNX8v4vDWQDu5dlAcdd+uB3gcXMD/P
 ginD11zp+6wtrWCm/+yBqpvDwXQX5PGUnwvbRfl7Ay3MmwmoXiecZMg0dwTSc7e0lhB4HGRH
 ZdBMJB4rHUVGdzqujK/ctOvrAAMFB/0Utb76Qe6sCMlHxVAmeE/fbo7Pi05btZ/x01r67dHf
 aMSP0riCKJ7M0OW+jAXtu9+z/BVnYisW67WWfxl2cS5tZDgiHgJARXWUOO72+sScHP8KQmTl
 1z16gyKbwY3SmyBkwcpOL35nhUWNLy93syPoY6sZUTikr2bZYukHDQ33XBPs4e6MbWKfsa9q
 aVmnlOF3k5UqChjutfHaEa4Q7VP4wBIpphHBi9MI16oJIzzBPbGl2uoedjwiZ6QeQZnSuOVY
 ZxU2d3lRA8PrtfFN1VSlpEm/VcAvtieHUYWHN0wOu+cp3Slr5XJVNjTjJhl28SlinMME54mK
 AGf2Ldr/dRwXwmEEGBEIAAkFAk9mqaACGwwACgkQL3lWvF2gS126EQD/VVd3FgjLKglClRQP
 zdfU847tqDK4zJjbmRv5vLLwoE0A+wbrQs7jVGU3NrS0AIl5vUmewpp2BKzSkepy23nWmejw
Message-ID: <0442938f-4cef-b563-8f35-1cbe9bd75864@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 21:36:31 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5e738dce.1c69fb81.40b8f.3691SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Capturing reasons for votes for historical sake?
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Well a significant part of the purpose of the RFC is to make the case
> for why it *should* be done, and the benefits in doing so, and only to

And the necessity of making the case also assumes it may, despite all
the effort, fail. The community members may remain unconvinced the
change that is proposed is beneficial. This is, ultimately, always the
reason to vote no.

> To vote yes is to state your overall agreement with the arguments made
> in the RFC. If you've read up and want to vote "no", I think that is
> perfectly fine and should be fully encouraged, but do the decent thing
> for your fellow developers and explain why so they're not left trying to
> guess.

As I noted, the default reason is always "the author of the RFC failed
to convince this change is necessary or beneficial". If somebody tries
to sell you something, you may have some specific flaws to point out and
may be even be fixed, or you may not be interested in the idea at all.
In the latter case, it's also OK to say you aren't interested and in
general case, you don't owe any improvement suggestions or detailed
explanations about that. The proof of need - especially for a mature
software like PHP - is always on the proposer.

> 
> Ultimately, how can an RFC ever be improved to be more widely acceptable
> if the people voting in the negative don't give feedback?

Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - the best improvement to the idea
is just not doing it. It's a valid outcome too. In the process of making
new things, everybody is bound to have a bad idea once or twice. It's
completely normal and once it is discovered it's a bad idea, there's no
problem in discarding it and moving on.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com