Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93322
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_=M14trnB_SP+0sVXM7PUzmjC-wnibXi_T5U3UExwvNtg@mail.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>
	<dc3acf18-f95c-8ea6-c854-1154fa947d0e@php.net>
	<CAESVnVp+dqH9NvDJfb-2Ou48Af3Ef808x_6nucc=Jsmkj6XxGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8c7872c3-c7c0-e2df-c61f-912ca6eb3527@gmail.com>
	<CAL=_i_=M14trnB_SP+0sVXM7PUzmjC-wnibXi_T5U3UExwvNtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:32:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAESVnVoEbpT3-MK2w-y08N7iwRwL6AnHJWUPLsQMDAZBdX3cYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@php.net>, 
	Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
>     Still, I regard editing someone else's work as poor form.
>
>     Introducing a way to do that, and relying on social pressure to keep
> everyone in check is not a good long term plan ... sounds great, until
> someone actually does make an edit that the original author vehemently
> disagrees with.
>
This is why I defined the TPE RFC to scope that permission SOLELY to
the arguments section.  I agree that the rest of the document should
be considered "owned" by the original author.

Would taking a page out of Wikipedia by having the notion of "Talk"
pages make more sense, perhaps?

>     Can't we just require the section to be included by the original
> author(s) ?
>
We can, and I'd settle for that as a first step, but as the RFC
states, it doesn't do justice to the "Against" arguments to rely on
someone who is, by definition, in favor of the proposal to summarize
all arguments convincingly.

-Sara