Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93293 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 20991 invoked from network); 12 May 2016 20:32:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 May 2016 20:32:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rewilliams@thesba.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rewilliams@thesba.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thesba.com designates 208.106.205.211 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rewilliams@thesba.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 208.106.205.211 ntsexchedgea2.newtekemail.com Received: from [208.106.205.211] ([208.106.205.211:45050] helo=NTSEXCHEDGEA2.nts.phx1) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 74/E6-28272-D48E4375 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 16:32:15 -0400 Received: from NTSMAILBOX2.NTS.PHX1 (208.106.205.233) by NTSEXCHEDGEA2.newtekemail.com (208.106.205.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Thu, 12 May 2016 13:31:29 -0700 Received: from NTSMAILBOX2.NTS.PHX1 (2002:d06a:cde9::d06a:cde9) by NTSMAILBOX2.NTS.PHX1 (2002:d06a:cde9::d06a:cde9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Thu, 12 May 2016 13:32:08 -0700 Received: from NTSMAILBOX2.NTS.PHX1 ([fe80::1c1f:da12:b374:da6e]) by NTSMAILBOX2.NTS.PHX1 ([fe80::1c1f:da12:b374:da6e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Thu, 12 May 2016 13:32:08 -0700 To: PHP internals Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs Thread-Index: AQHRrHSiuZ2au38dgEO7GyS0Q81L8p+2NyOA Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 20:32:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.16.153.36] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_46AF2860-BC92-42E3-A716-542277F3E66E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs From: rewilliams@thesba.com (Robert Williams) --Apple-Mail=_46AF2860-BC92-42E3-A716-542277F3E66E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9C6EA840-AA30-48FD-AE3C-A439D8095F71" --Apple-Mail=_9C6EA840-AA30-48FD-AE3C-A439D8095F71 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 This would be great if everyone just wanted to state their stance and be = done with it. It reminds me of the election pamphlets that my state = sends out to inform voters of what the upcoming ballet measures are and = what various folks=E2=80=99 for/against arguments are. But those = arguments are collected in advance and there is only a single edition = printed, so there are no direct responses. I=E2=80=99m not sure how well = this format would work with the back-and-forth that usually happens in = RFC discussions. Will folks need to summarize (and respond to) all the arguments they = want to address in their addition, and keep updating it as new arguments = come in to which they want to respond? Will they be able to link to = others=E2=80=99 comments and respond to them that way? And if they can = link, what will stop these sections from becoming piles of spaghetti? = Would folks wait until near the end of the discussion period to make = their additions to avoid repeat visits, and how would that affect the = discussion? -Bob --Apple-Mail=_9C6EA840-AA30-48FD-AE3C-A439D8095F71 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

This would be great if everyone just wanted = to state their stance and be done with it. It reminds me of the election = pamphlets that my state sends out to inform voters of what the upcoming = ballet measures are and what various folks=E2=80=99 for/against = arguments are. But those arguments are collected in advance and there is = only a single edition printed, so there are no direct responses. I=E2=80=99= m not sure how well this format would work with the back-and-forth that = usually happens in RFC discussions.

Will folks need to summarize (and = respond to) all the arguments they want to address in their addition, = and keep updating it as new arguments come in to which they want to = respond? Will they be able to link to others=E2=80=99 comments and = respond to them that way? And if they can link, what will stop these = sections from becoming piles of spaghetti? Would folks wait until near = the end of the discussion period to make their additions to avoid repeat = visits, and how would that affect the discussion?

-Bob

= --Apple-Mail=_9C6EA840-AA30-48FD-AE3C-A439D8095F71-- --Apple-Mail=_46AF2860-BC92-42E3-A716-542277F3E66E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXNOhHAAoJEFBTSdRZ0ub3jtcP/ivGzS9vN0Iy7NaJFHeBVQBi xaZsKZWdQLtigRo3sPB4u8B51r9VM0+/W2B2XCSo9KZCeRALjqSxCjdqlKGm/oKW 9KT/5MacBOehYTp9oEJhmnmAe35BM9ZK5uSvJA2J/bC2FiF+2UGVEvOMJFh5Z1bi RW4Wgv8jF/9CUZrC2qTeSjRnjPgcDXOJn5HCOkM+OQy7o/X3ocFdGZu9NyCQxsMy DHchIo9npzy3ylYi3T8Dm2Q0fZCbES6nmZGw131A9rm8fNGs9FMl1BUmf5bJ9DNw pX3NPZ2PZ8O6AMoMlMmrptFaPhRQ64UMOsvXhG8/7FIHbBITLwNJf2a+59iBfkVD GeWrw5UFW0EaLCYgdNIaj5I2+wNRwTxapI1N8+CCJYDlG1DaK/T8WuI3N3vK4btb 3Nlx7QxyPperGzbxZdLCxs3RAiwN+GJBSlXD/e1wKzWI/j9Mi7LNANXnd2zAneuL DHSwirio1Ok8hyDyCNb+nWHxBipRbCCQyHx2hMGw0QVzpv6UHAgXSfw5vv0TyUAj 94/EP530B/lpl2yD7nrP3JKBeAWax1Zeu5B96h2hIHIYwXDbYDFPA1gvdTkm4h7w F1u/ZFA+TaaWL2du++So7FYAnLgq+uQlQFr/AoP1kf4M+fX2rjeGCMa4hwNKbjUJ HNyvbPxyxM7Agi8DJvPR =8Gw9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_46AF2860-BC92-42E3-A716-542277F3E66E--