Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64805 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27500 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2013 08:31:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jan 2013 08:31:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=listas@rafaeldohms.com.br; sender-id=fail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=listas@rafaeldohms.com.br; spf=fail; sender-id=fail Received-SPF: fail (pb1.pair.com: domain rafaeldohms.com.br does not designate 209.85.220.174 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: listas@rafaeldohms.com.br X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.174 mail-vc0-f174.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.174] ([209.85.220.174:36410] helo=mail-vc0-f174.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CA/F2-02684-27C7EE05 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 03:31:47 -0500 Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d16so250454vcd.19 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:31:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=MAXJzbsj7iTfeEAdRhNhbztgQXrdFDX7cqRrGI6981k=; b=nYnQgvj/Qj7OYY3lJCS5UGjV25CeY6/zdwgxeLGxp5UxH0sE/i5HZi4Ew4bI3zuu7+ G0cyxajF7iRm21gLM4wVCWO8Uir5aAAyKAyZkfVAzS22AgJLzSQDvPb5zCbmKObwNR94 rTB4UaLt+wa5q9CGtSEsqgYkasm8LKg37tjlx1wuWhy7ZACcqk3clZByHridLV58iCXs KTv4QBujXrJbCi3PZEMCaevmPpkY9fPbDGZU/Etr1G//Yb/QaFgEnY3hk5PdapAMy21C K5dqws8FHKX8Hy57kse/GQqe4LWqsBeI2F1piS0kxrq6kl5x+LHcnMQ4foGVNBDQGXIr kSqg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.156.15 with SMTP id u15mr88886950vcw.51.1357806703682; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.58.207 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:31:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:31:43 +0100 Message-ID: To: Adam Harvey Cc: Anthony Ferrara , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be19e3f259504d2eb023f X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmwtj7Eo2gakiRC3RN4lSJS+j0X6m4RaQzLlYKM9cOAttzpwjPUjiX5kSFIvSEfIgIYvLCn Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Was Reflection annotations reader - We Need A Vision From: listas@rafaeldohms.com.br (Rafael Dohms) --f46d043be19e3f259504d2eb023f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Adam Harvey wrote: > > So my dilemma is this: how do I voice this (without simply a drive-by > -1 vote, which isn't really helpful either, and is overly discouraging > to the people who've put a lot of work in to polish the feature up) > without being shouted down for being unhelpful or uncivil? > > In my humble opinion, if your only "argument" is a -1, the don't be part of the discussion, but rather be a vote when (and if) the RFC goes to a vote. There are 2 moments to express yourself: the discussion, the vote. In the discussion phase I believe opinion should be expressed with solid concerns. Performance issues, bad syntax, is it relevant or not, etc. A simple "i don't like it" does not add, so it can be ommited. The voting is where you can simply say: i don't want this regardless of the syntax intent or how many unicorns it provides. That is what i do. -- Rafael Dohms PHP Evangelist and Community Leader http://doh.ms http://wwwamsterdamphp.nl --f46d043be19e3f259504d2eb023f--