Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93313 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89532 invoked from network); 13 May 2016 13:32:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 May 2016 13:32:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rowan.collins@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rowan.collins@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rowan.collins@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.53 mail-wm0-f53.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.53] ([74.125.82.53:37706] helo=mail-wm0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0E/23-01216-757D5375 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 09:32:09 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id a17so30574167wme.0 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 06:32:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jn8a4k2lLvTIdonmYw+bPMy1NekMhKJDNyS8ftK0r/k=; b=wk941QrwgL9Z6sLcjjE8/aqPsajcRaM/gsXLIRQ3Gpr6HKgz3SxAfZfzxu28ZVa1eo ESiKrJBgqEPSYcZjm1wTd215yFoK8b9cbuylswT/Glv+yjkbpzHtkmjUuk+5h3YyQdV7 fKQ/HbG9Wh8mzTL7iCCZ2nqUXY3KHOL9+Jv/OcUCWEsF6cZtEctj2yfGnffdVlhEYMsO 2Tpk9OLzJi2xNZzzEZ8qNVnjWhpEYrq1OnpGG7zYl/gH1EouJK7EacWOuqq6ZQOo1JAr f9QHLcPtNLU/gPAWhdMKCM8Y9xsTMDJ2kwmc4TLtIkw35iV0OruuUnDJj8v+d7Ku+2KM iwcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jn8a4k2lLvTIdonmYw+bPMy1NekMhKJDNyS8ftK0r/k=; b=d0LcU3qQVs7Eq/cxWtmdFH+v94sEX4zpxkTwkbdn3zxFL4hZqhTBwCV4KHJLzxxUt7 VBHXv8ZTnmUV4+PrIRB49nm2YKNuhCKY/zN5nzHprDIKtNqsfuZX6zraKav2Pu+oqpkb eKyAGiCoHS8Tsg7seA+KA+lyiE3CR6ZxrHAW1PPKZX2ZiR+1YH6VJUvfrFV91mOhddrp YitnAfV5hcj4aB8khCJgNtGowHx2kTQ6x9O/3cDNoD7xvxIYaE5BevQBiYdE4oP/xEmp pWWikoEjq6ZJtKY8riYsBRmtTFh9EGLs27qNFntkPy03uXx80BGpZMv74msI5V0Yt+Cd L+ww== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUiK8pFe+TqJjKhBZGKcKpdJZ+rGoqVaRWXnoMzxxkSQ00J2Ua1BG5LHU9iYl3mkg== X-Received: by 10.28.232.212 with SMTP id f81mr4016340wmi.27.1463146324085; Fri, 13 May 2016 06:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.98] ([93.188.182.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id wb10sm18695079wjc.8.2016.05.13.06.32.02 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 May 2016 06:32:03 -0700 (PDT) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <1d8d5c0c-0403-7e9e-5b93-56de43648c99@php.net> Message-ID: <7119991e-415f-20e3-22e8-5f6a68df0e34@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:30:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1d8d5c0c-0403-7e9e-5b93-56de43648c99@php.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins) On 13/05/2016 11:07, François Laupretre wrote: > 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. In my opinion, the notion of "owning" an RFC is not always helpful - we're here to work together to come up with the best solution, not to compete for kudos or defend a fixed position. That said, I recognise that the main body of the RFC benefits from having an identified "lead editor", so it stays consistent. If this section is intended as a collaborative summary of the discussion, then I would say you would have no more right or responsibility than anyone else to police it on "your" RFC (and no less, either). If somebody adds something that is genuinely irrelevant (e.g. based on a simple misunderstanding of the RFC) then somebody else (*anyobdy* else) could remove it. However, if it's just that you don't think a particular argument is subjectively valid, then the fact that someone holds a contrary opinion is a useful piece of information to the reader, and should stay. Think of it like a comment section, "the opinions below are not necessarily those of the RFC's sponsors". Regards, Rowan Collins [IMSoP]