Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81132
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuQe5SB6P4fDSVy1=DHyVMEHLFo_W2mW2e5p1x5xuWxv9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54C4A44F.2030902@gmail.com> <CAKxcST875eALqofUGfFgxN6fh1+1UVJUqY2W6Dd65x5d6STmZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPg3Xx+WguarCd66NsUchgp4FrgiaEO5qFTmD8_QAiW_7n-s5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+kxMuQe5SB6P4fDSVy1=DHyVMEHLFo_W2mW2e5p1x5xuWxv9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:43:44 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPg3Xx+P=dy_jP65iCX8EAewfOV+PiwF-wvyHH-LHo1PGjFZvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: Paul Dragoonis <dragoonis@gmail.com>, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacc346060513050d7cbcb7
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Vote results for default ctors RFC
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--047d7bacc346060513050d7cbcb7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 25 January 2015 at 15:44, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On 25 January 2015 at 11:26, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's what the mailing list threads are for, right?
>
>
> If someone has already said a reason on the list for why an RFC should
> be voted no, when someone else agrees with that reason it's not common
> for them to email, as it could be viewed as generating noise.
>

Any internals discussion thread can be viewed as generating noise.  How are
readers to know whether the one post mentioning a particular for/against
reason has wider support/disapproval without people saying so in the
central discussion thread(s)?  If it were a "noise or nothing" decision,
I'd rather have multiple people saying "+1" on a particular thought or idea
*during the discussion phase* than everyone keeping quiet for fear of being
"noisy".  Of course, I'd really rather posts be slightly longer and well
thought-out than "+1" too.


>
> Also having all the reasons why an RFC was declined in one place would
> make it easier to revisit RFCs in the future. It would allow people to
> see if RFCs were declined because people thought they were just a bad
> idea, or if there was a problem with a small detail of the RFC,
> without having to wade through email archives.
>

There's nothing, procedurally, preventing RFC authors from summarising the
discussion around an RFC on the RFC's wiki page; say after a vote has been
finished, or even before the voting period.


>
> However I think there is a strong risk of people having to give a
> reason why they voted no being abused, particularly if it is shown
> while the voting was taking place, as people could be harassed for
> choosing an 'invalid' reason to reject the RFC.
>

I too fear the "that's a terrible reason to vote the way you did" knee-jerk
reactions. Then again, I could merrily vote "yes" to every single RFC
without raising a whiff of suspicion or ridicule. :)


>
> cheers
> Dan
>

--047d7bacc346060513050d7cbcb7--