Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93323
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.161.174 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVoEbpT3-MK2w-y08N7iwRwL6AnHJWUPLsQMDAZBdX3cYg@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>
	<CAESVnVoEbpT3-MK2w-y08N7iwRwL6AnHJWUPLsQMDAZBdX3cYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 23:01:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_=qWNW+86e6r=08EpiNv+T1ZSz3BHxX9Y9WMfCeHX1+7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
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: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0864a87acc2e0532c06a95
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--94eb2c0864a87acc2e0532c06a95
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Evening,

    > This is why I defined the TPE RFC to scope that permission SOLELY to
the arguments section.

    I get that, but it doesn't make enough of a difference, in my opinion.

    > 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.

    I like little steps, less likely to fall over :)

    If we are going to apply social pressure to change anything, it should
be to eradicate the tendency to marry before voting ...

    The wiki is exclusive, the vast majority of the community who are free
to come and argue their case, don't even have the ability to edit the wiki.

    Talking about doing an argument justice, by allowing a select few to
edit the work of others, doesn't make sense to me.

    When opcache was merged it was ignored by every RFC, even though it's
very difficult to do anything in /Zend without impacting opcache.

    All it took to get people to consider the impact was adding the section
late one night (I done it). Nobody ever bothers to remove that section, and
if they are able, they fill it in (or are told how to fill it in).

    The objectives seem to be fulfilled by just adding the section into the
template, and formally requiring that it be maintained during discussion.

Cheers
Joe



On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> 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
>

--94eb2c0864a87acc2e0532c06a95--