Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93298
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <A3E2E48D-1280-4D24-9ACB-8C697F2095DF@thesba.com>
References: <CAESVnVqAYFZ8qoPe=jgbwaCT3azS6rn_Rb2Hx_Q4=JAYf0zLaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3E2E48D-1280-4D24-9ACB-8C697F2095DF@thesba.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:47:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAESVnVoR0LebVwpJ1fYXrd==5o2LNypfvDkcbjOPvdS2tBbKNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Williams <rewilliams@thesba.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Robert Williams <rewilliams@thesba.com> wr=
ote:
> 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.
>
I was literally looking at said pamphlet when the thought occurred to me. :=
)

> 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 wi=
th the
> back-and-forth that usually happens in RFC discussions.
>
I don't imagine this piece replacing "live" discussions, nor would I
expect that it would completely remove repetition of arguments.  It's
just meant to help organize arguments pro/con in a single, easily
referenced place.

> And if they can link, what will stop these sections from becoming piles o=
f spaghetti?
>
Self-interest.  I expect it's fairly well agreed that concise
arguments tend to be more effective for simple virtue of the fact that
they'll be read.  Those voter pamphlets recognize this too and keep
their statements to, at most, one page.

I've updated my pipe-operator RFC to reflect what I imagine this might
look like: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pipe-operator#third-party_arguments

> Would folks wait until near the
> end of the discussion period to make their additions to avoid repeat visi=
ts,
> and how would that affect the discussion?
>
I would probably update as new arguments are raised.  And I would hope
it would effect the discussion for the positive as opinions wouldn't
need to be restated over and over again, and when it comes times to
vote, those doing the voting could refresh their feelings on each
argument.

-Sara