Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93314
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain daveyshafik.com from 209.85.217.170 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: me@daveyshafik.com
In-Reply-To: <7119991e-415f-20e3-22e8-5f6a68df0e34@gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVqAYFZ8qoPe=jgbwaCT3azS6rn_Rb2Hx_Q4=JAYf0zLaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1d8d5c0c-0403-7e9e-5b93-56de43648c99@php.net>
	<7119991e-415f-20e3-22e8-5f6a68df0e34@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 16:22:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CANaX5nfiqwb83hjsouCowOVe3S8d1OukwBNcFtVj8tMrV+-PzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b342d503c2d160532ba003a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs
From: davey@php.net (Davey Shafik)

--047d7b342d503c2d160532ba003a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 13/05/2016 11:07, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre wrote:
>
>> Le 12/05/2016 =C3=A0 19:33, Sara Golemon a =C3=A9crit :
>>
>>> 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'r=
e
> here to work together to come up with the best solution, not to compete f=
or
> kudos or defend a fixed position. That said, I recognise that the main bo=
dy
> 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 anyo=
ne
> 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 contra=
ry
> 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".


Perhaps just split it out into a separate document that is concurrent to
the RFC=E2=80=A6

- Davey

--047d7b342d503c2d160532ba003a--