Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72545
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.107 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <52FC679D.4@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:35:09 -0800
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, 
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAGa2bXaP-jyU4wZgheLdCUcEopgwXJRY+j=JnvMMBF4D_x1Mnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXaP-jyU4wZgheLdCUcEopgwXJRY+j=JnvMMBF4D_x1Mnw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC DISCUSSION] Have voting options to show reason
 why dislike proposal.
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

> Since RFC is technical discussion, there should be good reasons to oppose
> proposals and these opinions should be used to improve/create another RFC.

In general, there's no burden of proof to not introduce some feature or
change. It is the default. PHP has worked for many years before without
that feature, however good may it be, so it is proven we can live
without it, even if it appears very good (of course, this does not
include high-exposure security issues, etc. but we're talking about
regular stuff I suppose). The burden of proof is on the proposer to
convince people that with that feature it would be much better than
without it. Sometimes it is obvious (unanimous approval votes aren't
unheard of), sometimes it is not that obvious. Sometimes people just
don't realize it is important, sometimes they disagree on the
importance, sometimes it's just not the right time for it.
In this case, the burden is on the proposer to solicit feedback and
figure out why people are not convinced and what could be done, if
anything, to convince them.

So yes, it would be very good if people who disagree with the RFC would
voice their concerns, when they are different from ones already voiced
on the list ("me too" is not very useful). Especially if disagreement is
of constructive nature and can be resolved with some modification. But I
don't think there's a real duty for people to explain each of their "no"
vote if they just don't feel like spending time arguing. Not everybody
would do it, and nobody should be forced to do it (I'm not speaking
about myself here, if I disagree with something I usually make it known
;). Thus I think there's no need to add any special things - we have the
list, and if the discussion continues whithin the vote, the vote can
always be extended or even restarted.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227