Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93306 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71441 invoked from network); 13 May 2016 10:07:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 May 2016 10:07:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:27441] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 57/50-01216-777A5375 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 06:07:52 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F8722003A5; Fri, 13 May 2016 09:58:04 +0200 (CEST) To: Sara Golemon , PHP internals References: Message-ID: <1d8d5c0c-0403-7e9e-5b93-56de43648c99@php.net> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 12:07:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160513-0, 13/05/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Le 12/05/2016 à 19:33, Sara Golemon a écrit : > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing > > Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting! > > -Sara > As RFC author, what should I do with irrelevant arguments against my RFC ? Should I add a reply ? More generally, I don't like the idea that anybody else can add anything to my RFC. I agree that, ideally, the reactions of the ML should be summarized somewhere but the question is : WHO will summarize ? Ideally, we would need an independant 3rd party, but we don't have it. So, the best solution, IMO, is still to let the author summarize the ML discussion in his RFC. Regards François