Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91173
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091208150.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BY2PR02MB2980991BC5A82BE60B75114ACD60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEZPtU6JVFptaHwR7hc3OUcGem_qv5MkZrW7NmpYgrM423u88g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56BA13A3.3000202@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:28:19 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6JVFptaHwR7hc3OUcGem_qv5MkZrW7NmpYgrM423u88g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of
 Conduct progress
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Pierre Joye wrote on 09/02/2016 16:00:
> Also one problem we have now with the RFCs is feedback not being taken
> into account because it does not match the author ideas.

In a previous discussion, I backed the idea of encouraging all RFCs to 
have multiple authorship. The idea that an RFC "belongs" to a single 
sponsor can lead to defensive / competitive solutions, rather than 
collaborative ones. The RFCs are hosted on a wiki, a platform literally 
invented to foster ad hoc collaboration; they should be drafted, 
re-drafted, edited, and re-shaped.

This could actually form part of the guidelines: "Do not treat an RFC as 
your personal property to be defended against the community; rather, 
treat it as an offering of effort which the community will help you 
shape". (I haven't spent long thinking about that wording - feel free to 
improve it.)

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]