Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77386
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPwsocFJMYArtLzDy34gRWarEY3o1CB-hg1Tn5_6mfn7AzasNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8DEFB90E-0F7F-4876-890D-D4AD1C655D87@ajf.me> <CAPwsocFxXsBLvOOL1d5tACnWw8hsy_gwE9M-4OCzO1b427zHOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411223823.3023.101.camel@guybrush> <CAPwsocFJMYArtLzDy34gRWarEY3o1CB-hg1Tn5_6mfn7AzasNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:09:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg3XxJX3JAkitxJfAd2Cn3=u7wLdr22_YYMFi-=Bs1TdNhcvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>, 
	Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1ee487015f40503809c43
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is it fair that people with no karma can vote on RFCs?
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--001a11c1ee487015f40503809c43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 20 September 2014 15:49, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 September 2014 15:37, Johannes Schl=C3=BCter <johannes@schlueters.d=
e>
> wrote:
> >
> > It is unclear what a "no" means. Might be a related to the patch the
> > design, a misunderstanding or due to a critical issue ...  in the end a
> > vote creates "losers" with little feedback.
> >
> > But well, I'm saying this from day one of the voting.
> >
> > johannes
> >
>
> This is my opinion exactly
>
> Some people who vote no are involved in the internals discussion, and
> that's great. But some people vote no without a word. How do we know
> they even understand the impact of their vote? Without their feedback
> how can the proposal be improved?
>
> Even if they say "I'm voting no because of all of the reasons stated
> by Person X", that's enough to know that more than one person doesn't
> like a specific aspect, and makes it a higher priority for
> improvement.
>
>
This is exactly the case for the =E2=80=9CYes=E2=80=9D voters too.  I=E2=80=
=99d be for having some
avenue (um... internals, or=E2=80=A6 is that the perfect place?) for giving=
 two
cents [voluntarily] about a voter=E2=80=99s decision or indeed lack thereof=
.
Ideally, the atmosphere would be open *and inviting* (the latter appears to
be a problem here) where a pitchfork-weilding mob won=E2=80=99t descend on =
anyone
who happened to make a vote, one way or the other.

In the past we=E2=80=99ve had people editing wiki articles (not RFCs) with =
their
own thoughts as attributed annotations.  This has obvious issues, but it
would be a) in writing, and b) directly associated with the RFC, and c)
*not* a conversation.


> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a11c1ee487015f40503809c43--