Hi all,
Seeing people referencing former RFCs that failed when someone brings up an RFC (which is a good thing to reference, BTW) I am finally compelled to comment in hope there would be will to improve it.
When court justices rule on important decisions they write opinions, or join with the majority or minority opinion. That way judges and others in the future can know why things were decided a certain way.
However in PHP we have no way of knowing why people voted against a proposal except maybe for those very few who commented negatively on the mailing list. Which is far from concise and frequently not conclusive.
It is a real shame that the PHP voting process has no way to capture a concise description of why people voted against an RFC. A "No" vote could mean any of the following, or something completely different, and their reasons are really important when it comes to future consideration of the same issue:
- I hate the idea and never want to see it in PHP
- I'm okay with the idea but
a. I have a small issue with "x"
b. I have a big issue with "y"
c. I prefer to see it implemented using "z" approach instead - I love the idea but
a. Can't support it given "x"
b. I want it to be implement using "y" approach instead - We can't do this until we do "x" first
- We should do "x" instead
- Or who knows what other reason?
Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need to type in a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposal OR select from the reasons that others have already given when voting down the specific RFC?
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.
-Mike
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.
Thanks Mike, exactly what I was thinking when I started writing RFC:
COPA (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/compact-object-property-assignment)!
As you can see in my "Voting" section, I had the idea to capture
reasons for no-votes, to document it in the outcome of the RFC, should
it fail.
It would have saved my research quite a bit if I had had the no-vote
reasons for the RFCs I reference at the bottom.
+1 on the idea from me!
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that
choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.Thanks Mike, exactly what I was thinking when I started writing RFC:
COPA (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/compact-object-property-assignment)!As you can see in my "Voting" section, I had the idea to capture
reasons for no-votes, to document it in the outcome of the RFC, should
it fail.
It would have saved my research quite a bit if I had had the no-vote
reasons for the RFCs I reference at the bottom.+1 on the idea from me!
FWIW this has been discussed a few times already, and I believe the
consensus is: We're happy to have optional reasons for votes, if someone
actually implements it.
For the number of times someone has brought this up on list, there has been
a distinct lack of volunteers for actually making it happen ;)
Nikita
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that
choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.Thanks Mike, exactly what I was thinking when I started writing RFC:
COPA (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/compact-object-property-assignment)!As you can see in my "Voting" section, I had the idea to capture
reasons for no-votes, to document it in the outcome of the RFC, should
it fail.
It would have saved my research quite a bit if I had had the no-vote
reasons for the RFCs I reference at the bottom.+1 on the idea from me!
FWIW this has been discussed a few times already, and I believe the
consensus is: We're happy to have optional reasons for votes, if someone
actually implements it.For the number of times someone has brought this up on list, there has been
a distinct lack of volunteers for actually making it happen ;)
If anybody wants to take a stab at this, patching the doodle plugin[1]
would be the way to go.
[1]
https://github.com/php/web-wiki/tree/master/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/doodle
--
Christoph M. Becker
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that
choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.Thanks Mike, exactly what I was thinking when I started writing RFC:
COPA (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/compact-object-property-assignment)!As you can see in my "Voting" section, I had the idea to capture
reasons for no-votes, to document it in the outcome of the RFC, should
it fail.
It would have saved my research quite a bit if I had had the no-vote
reasons for the RFCs I reference at the bottom.+1 on the idea from me!
FWIW this has been discussed a few times already, and I believe the
consensus is: We're happy to have optional reasons for votes, if someone
actually implements it.For the number of times someone has brought this up on list, there has been
a distinct lack of volunteers for actually making it happen ;)If anybody wants to take a stab at this, patching the doodle plugin[1]
would be the way to go.[1]
https://github.com/php/web-wiki/tree/master/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/doodle
Ah, I see. So set up https://github.com/php/web-wiki locally and I'd have what I need?
-Mike
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that
choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.Thanks Mike, exactly what I was thinking when I started writing RFC:
COPA (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/compact-object-property-assignment)!As you can see in my "Voting" section, I had the idea to capture
reasons for no-votes, to document it in the outcome of the RFC, should
it fail.
It would have saved my research quite a bit if I had had the no-vote
reasons for the RFCs I reference at the bottom.+1 on the idea from me!
FWIW this has been discussed a few times already, and I believe the
consensus is: We're happy to have optional reasons for votes, if someone
actually implements it.For the number of times someone has brought this up on list, there has been
a distinct lack of volunteers for actually making it happen ;)If anybody wants to take a stab at this, patching the doodle plugin[1]
would be the way to go.[1]
https://github.com/php/web-wiki/tree/master/dokuwiki/lib/plugins/doodleAh, I see. So set up https://github.com/php/web-wiki locally and I'd have what I need?
It might work to install a plain DokuWiki, and to put the repo contents
on top. Otherwise, see
https://github.com/php/web-wiki/blob/master/docs/README.CONFIGURE.
--
Christoph M. Becker
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.
Thanks Mike, exactly what I was thinking when I started writing RFC:
COPA (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/compact-object-property-assignment)!As you can see in my "Voting" section, I had the idea to capture
reasons for no-votes, to document it in the outcome of the RFC, should
it fail.
It would have saved my research quite a bit if I had had the no-vote
reasons for the RFCs I reference at the bottom.+1 on the idea from me!
FWIW this has been discussed a few times already, and I believe the consensus is: We're happy to have optional reasons for votes, if someone actually implements it.
For the number of times someone has brought this up on list, there has been a distinct lack of volunteers for actually making it happen ;)
Nikita
Hi Nikita,
What would be required to implement it? I assume it is in PHP code? What access would be required?
-Mike
Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need to type in
a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposal
Pretty strong no for me.
-
Explaining exactly why you're voting no can be hard as there can be
multiple overlapping reasons for voting no. -
It sets up arguments about what is and isn't a valid reason for voting no.
-
It drives people who might want to vote no away from the project, if
they have to take the extra time to justify their position. -
The phrase "this is a terrible idea and I don't have enough crayons
to explain why to you" would be more likely to be used, and wouldn't
add much to the discussion. -
Shifts the part of the burden for coming up with a plan for how to
get the RFC implemented onto people who are not in favour of the RFC.
And the big issue, where possibly I disagree with your reasons for wanting this:
and their reasons are really important when it comes
to future consideration of the same issue
This kind of makes an assumption that all RFCs should have some path
to being passed.
For some RFCs, there just isn't a good path forward for them.
However in PHP we have no way of knowing why people voted against a proposal
I think this type of analysis belongs off-list. Which is why:
https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/rfc_codex.md
btw I think there's a bigger problem on some RFCs being accepted,
particularly where people who aren't core maintainers are voting on
things that really need an informed understanding of internals.
cheers
Dan
Ack
Explaining exactly why you're voting no can be hard as there can be
multiple overlapping reasons for voting no.It sets up arguments about what is and isn't a valid reason for voting no.
It drives people who might want to vote no away from the project, if
they have to take the extra time to justify their position.
Maybe a list of standard answers to choose from could be a good
compromise:
- Don't like the syntax
- Don't find the feature useful
- Limits future changes
- There are better solutions
- Is complicated to implement
- Breaks backwards compatibility
- Prefer not to say
All are valid reasons for voting no.
If there are multiple applicable reasons, just pick one.
Or allow picking multiple?
If having to pick one of these is enough to drive people away,
maybe it's for the best... ;-D
For some RFCs, there just isn't a good path forward for them.
Even so, giving a reason for voting no will make that much clearer,
and maybe stop more RFCs in their tracks.
btw I think there's a bigger problem on some RFCs being accepted,
particularly where people who aren't core maintainers are voting on
things that really need an informed understanding of internals.
True, - but likewise, there are purist who don't use PHP in the real world
and reject something pragmatic because it's not fancy enough.
It's important to be humble in a democracy.
Best regards,
Jakob
Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need to type in
a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposalPretty strong no for me.
Thank you for your reply. Let me start with the end of your reply, what you state was your biggest issue:
And the big issue, where possibly I disagree with your reasons for wanting this:
and their reasons are really important when it comes
to future consideration of the same issueThis kind of makes an assumption that all RFCs should have some path
to being passed.For some RFCs, there just isn't a good path forward for them.
Actually no. You are assuming wrong.
If we had history we could better see the RFCs that had valid reasons for not passing and that should not be revisited vs. the ones that didn't pass for some technicality and didn't pass because the timing was not right that should be revisited.
If we knew WHY RFCs were turned down then the next time someone brings the issue up again — which we they will — we could say "Here, read this. Chances are this idea will never pass for the reasons explained, so don't waste all of our bandwidth (unless you can counter all those objections, which you probably cannot.)"
So actually part of what I am asking for is a way to put the bad ones down, and for good.
btw I think there's a bigger problem on some RFCs being accepted,
particularly where people who aren't core maintainers are voting on
things that really need an informed understanding of internals.
I can certainly understand that perspective. But what's the proposal to improve that situation?
Actually, I think you are under-appreciating what I proposed. Consider if instead of a "Yes/No" prompting people to vote, there was a list of reasons to vote "no" from those who already voted no. Isn't it likely that people who got to review that list would be more likely to vote "no" in the case of something that should not actually be accepted?
(To be fair, if we did that we'd probably need a list of reason why people votes "yes" too so that voters could see why others voted yes and no.)
(BTW, I do think having a good history of why things failed might keep bad ones from being approved in the future "accidentally.")
However in PHP we have no way of knowing why people voted against a proposal
I think this type of analysis belongs off-list. Which is why:
https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/rfc_codex.md
That's nice, but requires superhuman efforts on one individual's part, is contained on the GitHub account controlled by one individual, and is inherently slanted by one individual's bias, even if only unconscious bias.
So it is really not a solution for the PHP community in general, notwithstanding that it is a nice resource that you have provided of your own industriousness.
- Explaining exactly why you're voting no can be hard as there can be
multiple overlapping reasons for voting no.
-
Nothing I proposed would stop someone from listing multiple reasons. Free-form text would allow someone to write a dissertation, if they desire.
-
If someone votes "no" but cannot put it into words, it is really fair that are driving the destiny of PHP used by ~5 million programmers?
-
There is nothing that In I am proposing that would stop you from just typing in "I really don't like this" and leave it at that.
- It sets up arguments about what is and isn't a valid reason for voting no.
Not sure how this is relevant. Once it is voted down it doesn't matter if people felt the reasons were valid or not, it would still be voted down.
BTW, I am not proposing that the reasons be tied to individuals. Those would be separated from the vote and displayed anonymously. So who specifically would they argue with? Unless of course you are earnestly concerned about this syndrome: https://imgur.com/gallery/91sn32Q
- It drives people who might want to vote no away from the project, if
they have to take the extra time to justify their position.
That is why I proposed that they could select from the list of all other things people have provided. If someone does not want to type a reason then just pick from one of the reasons other people already submitted.
- Shifts the part of the burden for coming up with a plan for how to
get the RFC implemented onto people who are not in favour of the RFC.
Currently it takes herculean effort to get almost anything approved, but it takes effectively zero effort to stifle the hard work someone invests in trying to improve PHP. Is it really just that all their work can be nullified by a simple thumbs down like an emperor deciding the death of a gladiator? (sorry, couldn't resist using that analogy. ;-)
BTW, I am thinking of the outrageous amount of work Paul M Jones is putting into Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2) and fear for him that all his effort will be for naught, and he won't even have a concise list of reasons why it was voted down. The best he will be able to do is infer from the comments in thousands of the messages why people voted down. But he still won't know.
Frankly it also feels to me that people seeing that will be a lot more likely to be be driven away from the project than the fact that people who have already gotten the right to vote on the project actually have to write a sentence or two to go along with their votes. I know that if people vote down his work after all his effort I will feel less like contributing for fear of the same outcome. But being told that I am expected to help future people by recording my reason to vote? Hell, I'd feel like I was being granted an honor and I would want to rise to the occassion.
It is almost like you are arguing the with great power comes no responsibility (sorry, couldn't resist using allusion, either. ;-)
- The phrase "this is a terrible idea and I don't have enough crayons
to explain why to you" would be more likely to be used, and wouldn't
add much to the discussion.
In which case we would be no worse off than we are now.
However, if even only 1/3 the people who voted actually did provide an intelligible reason then we'd be much farther along to know how and why we should reconsider something in the future, OR NOT.
And this might stop a lot of wasted effort. Otherwise we continue to be "Those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it."
-Mike
P.S. Some modifications to the proposal might include:
-
As Jakob Givoni proposed: a list of predetermined reasons even the first voter course pick from a list , OR they would write their own if they want.
-
Create a two (2) phase process.
Phase 1: Solicit people enter a short concise reason to vote "no" or "yes", or to select to join one of the existing reasons. This is basically everyones way to lobby for yes or no.
Phase 2: Do the actually vote where people can select a reason from the list to go with their vote, or enter a new one.
Hi Mike,
Currently it takes herculean effort to get almost anything approved, but it takes effectively zero effort to stifle the hard work someone invests in trying to improve PHP. Is it really just that all their work can be nullified by a simple thumbs down like an emperor deciding the death of a gladiator? (sorry, couldn't resist using that analogy. ;-)
BTW, I am thinking of the outrageous amount of work Paul M Jones is putting into Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2) and fear for him that all his effort will be for naught, and he won't even have a concise list of reasons why it was voted down. The best he will be able to do is infer from the comments in thousands of the messages why people voted down. But he still won't know.
I wanted to pull this point out from further up the thread, because I
think it's a very real concern, but I think it's about something more
fundamental than how people vote.
Large RFCs, where there's significant implementation work, are
essentially software projects. If we ran them that way, we'd all
collaborate on some sequence of steps (or several agile iterations, or
whatever), such as:
- Identifying the problem or aim
- Defining the scope
- Identifying risks
- Agreeing an approach
- Initial implementation or prototype
- Discovering problems based on the initial work
- Testing
- Final sign-off for release (this is what RFC votes should be)
The problem is that the RFC process only really covers a small fraction
of that process, and mostly the later parts. Most of the effort, and
crucially most of the decisions, are left to whoever is drafting the
RFC. So we end up with a process that feels more like a sales pitch for
a shrink-wrapped product:
- The RFC author identifies a problem, defines the scope, tries to
identify risks, designs a solution, maybe builds an initial
implementation or prototype, and starts refining and testing it - This is pitched to the community
- There is some negotiation, usually over details rather than
substantial rewrites, and often involving the author defending the
decisions they've already made - The community decides whether to "buy" the proposal (this is what RFC
votes often turn into)
Some RFCs are rejected because the community doesn't actually agree on
the definition of the problem or scope; capturing that in a reason for
voting No might help someone later, but it's already far too late to
save the effort of the author. Other RFCs are rejected because the
community agrees on the problem, but not the details of the solution;
writing that down encourages someone to try again, but repeatedly trying
variations until one passes might not be the most efficient process.
Just to be clear, I am not blaming authors for bringing ready-made
pitches like this - it's what the current process tells them to do. Nor
do I have a brilliant proposal that would change it overnight. But I do
think we need to spend more time collaborating on ideas, and less on
saying "yes" or "no" to each other's ready-made solutions.
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]
Hi Mike,
Currently it takes herculean effort to get almost anything approved, but it takes effectively zero effort to stifle the hard work someone invests in trying to improve PHP. Is it really just that all their work can be nullified by a simple thumbs down like an emperor deciding the death of a gladiator? (sorry, couldn't resist using that analogy. ;-)
BTW, I am thinking of the outrageous amount of work Paul M Jones is putting into Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2) and fear for him that all his effort will be for naught, and he won't even have a concise list of reasons why it was voted down. The best he will be able to do is infer from the comments in thousands of the messages why people voted down. But he still won't know.
I wanted to pull this point out from further up the thread, because I think it's a very real concern, but I think it's about something more fundamental than how people vote.
Large RFCs, where there's significant implementation work, are essentially software projects. If we ran them that way, we'd all collaborate on some sequence of steps (or several agile iterations, or whatever), such as:
- Identifying the problem or aim
- Defining the scope
- Identifying risks
- Agreeing an approach
- Initial implementation or prototype
- Discovering problems based on the initial work
- Testing
- Final sign-off for release (this is what RFC votes should be)
The problem is that the RFC process only really covers a small fraction of that process, and mostly the later parts. Most of the effort, and crucially most of the decisions, are left to whoever is drafting the RFC. So we end up with a process that feels more like a sales pitch for a shrink-wrapped product:
- The RFC author identifies a problem, defines the scope, tries to identify risks, designs a solution, maybe builds an initial implementation or prototype, and starts refining and testing it
- This is pitched to the community
- There is some negotiation, usually over details rather than substantial rewrites, and often involving the author defending the decisions they've already made
- The community decides whether to "buy" the proposal (this is what RFC votes often turn into)
Some RFCs are rejected because the community doesn't actually agree on the definition of the problem or scope; capturing that in a reason for voting No might help someone later, but it's already far too late to save the effort of the author. Other RFCs are rejected because the community agrees on the problem, but not the details of the solution; writing that down encourages someone to try again, but repeatedly trying variations until one passes might not be the most efficient process.
Just to be clear, I am not blaming authors for bringing ready-made pitches like this - it's what the current process tells them to do. Nor do I have a brilliant proposal that would change it overnight. But I do think we need to spend more time collaborating on ideas, and less on saying "yes" or "no" to each other's ready-made solutions.
I completely agree that the current process is sub-optimal.
It is basically like throwing a gladiator into the lion's den to see if they can survive. If the person writing the RFC is good, they might get an upvote. If they have no experience with writing RFCs and/or can't implement the C code, they are most likely doomed to failure. And PHP collectively is worse off because of this.
There is rarely if ever a collaborative process, except for what may happen ad-hoc between people off-list.
It would be great if instead of what we have know we could as a community discuss and determine a list of the top five (5) things we collectively want for PHP and put that out as a roadmap for PHP. Maybe even plan a series of remote "conferences" over Zoom to collaborate on such a top five (5) list.
Ironically I just today read about Docker publishing their roadmap on Github:
- Docker Roadmap: https://github.com/docker/roadmap/projects/1
From there we could solicit a working group for each of the five (5) areas to each go off to a GitHub repo to collaborate and come back with a proposal for implementing in PHP, with the proposal to include a plan for all aspects of the what's needed, not just the idea.
From there, we rinse and repeat.
Others: Does this sound viable?
-Mike
P.S. However, even though I completely agree that the current process is suboptimal, that does not mean asking for reasons for voting for posterity should be tabled as the two concerns are orthogonal and some feedback would be more helpful to those looking to understand past votes than no feedback at all.
More importantly, adding reasons for voting would only require an update implemented an then an vote to use it, but fixing the process is an open-ended concern that would require herded lots of cats and then to impose a much bigger change, so I wouldn't want perfect to be the enemy of the good here.
Hi everyone,
I want to break off this thing from the “Capturing reasons for votes for
historical sake?” thread.
Background and problem
Rowan Tommins wrote:
Hi Mike,
Currently it takes herculean effort to get almost anything approved,
but it takes effectively zero effort to stifle the hard work someone
invests in trying to improve PHP. Is it really just that all their
work can be nullified by a simple thumbs down like an emperor deciding
the death of a gladiator? (sorry, couldn't resist using that analogy. ;-)BTW, I am thinking of the outrageous amount of work Paul M Jones is
putting into Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2) and fear
for him that all his effort will be for naught, and he won't even have
a concise list of reasons why it was voted down. The best he will be
able to do is infer from the comments in thousands of the messages why
people voted down. But he still won't know.I wanted to pull this point out from further up the thread, because I
think it's a very real concern, but I think it's about something more
fundamental than how people vote.Large RFCs, where there's significant implementation work, are
essentially software projects. If we ran them that way, we'd all
collaborate on some sequence of steps (or several agile iterations, or
whatever), such as:
- Identifying the problem or aim
- Defining the scope
- Identifying risks
- Agreeing an approach
- Initial implementation or prototype
- Discovering problems based on the initial work
- Testing
- Final sign-off for release (this is what RFC votes should be)
The problem is that the RFC process only really covers a small fraction
of that process, and mostly the later parts. Most of the effort, and
crucially most of the decisions, are left to whoever is drafting the
RFC. So we end up with a process that feels more like a sales pitch for
a shrink-wrapped product:
- The RFC author identifies a problem, defines the scope, tries to
identify risks, designs a solution, maybe builds an initial
implementation or prototype, and starts refining and testing it- This is pitched to the community
- There is some negotiation, usually over details rather than
substantial rewrites, and often involving the author defending the
decisions they've already made- The community decides whether to "buy" the proposal (this is what RFC
votes often turn into)Some RFCs are rejected because the community doesn't actually agree on
the definition of the problem or scope; capturing that in a reason for
voting No might help someone later, but it's already far too late to
save the effort of the author. Other RFCs are rejected because the
community agrees on the problem, but not the details of the solution;
writing that down encourages someone to try again, but repeatedly trying
variations until one passes might not be the most efficient process.Just to be clear, I am not blaming authors for bringing ready-made
pitches like this - it's what the current process tells them to do. Nor
do I have a brilliant proposal that would change it overnight. But I do
think we need to spend more time collaborating on ideas, and less on
saying "yes" or "no" to each other's ready-made solutions.Regards,
I agree with those quoted on this, it matches my own experience from
the… I want to say around two dozen?… RFCs I have created or contributed to.
For most ideas, they get one real chance at life — someone writes a
draft RFC, attempts implementation, puts it out to discussion, perhaps
makes minor changes after feedback, and then puts it to one big vote. If
the vote passes, the feature is finalised then and there. If the vote
fails, it is dead. Of course, it does not have to be this way in every
case, but it usually is.
There are several angles you could take to criticise this process. Here
are just two on my mind:
- Ideas that are popular enough to get voted through are not necessarily
fully refined. The typical life of an RFC — from draft to final merged
patch — might be as little as a few weeks. That is not a long time, and
it is probably not long enough to fully evaluate how well the idea has
been executed. The first significant code using the feature is probably
going to be written long after it's too late to make significant changes. - Ideas that do not get voted through can die an untimely death. Perhaps
with further refineements, they would have been acccepted — sometimes
there is agreement with an idea in principle, but not in execution.
Possible solution
I have been thinking about these problems for a while now, and wondering
if there is a better way. I am aware that some projects, e.g. the
Chromium web browser and the Rust programming language, land things on
trunk before they are fully “stable” and keep them gated behind a flag
until they are done. I must admit I am not that familiar with it, but it
seems like it could be the basis of a better approach.
Essentially, what if we don't have one vote on an RFC, but two? The
first vote would be the conclusion of a similar RFC process to now, but
instead of voting on merging the feature into the next release, it would
be on merging it to an official development/unstable branch of PHP (it
could just be master but with some sort of flag). Then, over the next
few months, interested parties could play around with this bleeding-edge
version of PHP, and the feature could be gradually improved. At some
point, a second vote can then be held on whether we think the feature in
its current state is now polished enough to be finalised (frozen in
place with a promise of compatibility) and released in a regular PHP
version.
The hope would be that this longer period of refinement could:
- Give better engagement with the community — they could actually have
not only the opportunity (publicly available binaries?), but time to try
out and write perhaps real code with proposed features before they are
finalised - Reduce rough edges on features that currently successfully pass as RFCs
• Give features that are in principle popular but fail in the RFC
process due to implementation detail disagreements a second chance —
maybe people would be more willing to vote for things if they know it is
not going to be released in its current form, and with more
experimentation there is a chance of finding an acceptable final version
This is just a rough idea though. And sorry for the long email!
How does the list feel about this idea? :)
Regards,
Andrea
Hi all,
It is a real shame that the PHP voting process has no way to capture a concise description of why people voted against an RFC.
...
Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need to type in a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposal OR select from the reasons that others have already given when voting down the specific RFC?
I would be against making it a requirement but I sure would be happy to see it as an option.
--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones@pmjones.io
http://paul-m-jones.com
Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php
Hi all,
It is a real shame that the PHP voting process has no way to capture a concise description of why people voted against an RFC.
...
Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need to type in a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposal OR select from the reasons that others have already given when voting down the specific RFC?I would be against making it a requirement but I sure would be happy to see it as an option.
Just curious if the "requirement" was only "you have to enter in something" would that still be an issue for you?
It is not like we could reasonably validate that they entered something intelligible.
They could just say "I don't like" and that would meet the "requirement."
--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones@pmjones.io
http://paul-m-jones.comModernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphpSolving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php
Hi!
Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either
need to type in a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a
proposal OR select from the reasons that others have already given
when voting down the specific RFC?
As an optional feature, it might be helpful. But it shouldn't be mandatory.
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Den man. 16. mar. 2020 kl. 20.29 skrev Mike Schinkel mike@newclarity.net:
Hi all,
Seeing people referencing former RFCs that failed when someone brings up an RFC (which is a good thing to reference, BTW) I am finally compelled to comment in hope there would be will to improve it.
When court justices rule on important decisions they write opinions, or join with the majority or minority opinion. That way judges and others in the future can know why things were decided a certain way.
However in PHP we have no way of knowing why people voted against a proposal except maybe for those very few who commented negatively on the mailing list. Which is far from concise and frequently not conclusive.
It is a real shame that the PHP voting process has no way to capture a concise description of why people voted against an RFC. A "No" vote could mean any of the following, or something completely different, and their reasons are really important when it comes to future consideration of the same issue:
- I hate the idea and never want to see it in PHP
- I'm okay with the idea but
a. I have a small issue with "x"
b. I have a big issue with "y"
c. I prefer to see it implemented using "z" approach instead- I love the idea but
a. Can't support it given "x"
b. I want it to be implement using "y" approach instead- We can't do this until we do "x" first
- We should do "x" instead
- Or who knows what other reason?
Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need to type in a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposal OR select from the reasons that others have already given when voting down the specific RFC?
If we had that we could list the reasons and the number of votes that choose those reasons on the RFC for historical purposes.
I am not gonna personally answer a survey everytime I vote against a
feature. This is why we have a discussion period to raise issues, of
course not everyone will raise all their concerns to each and every
RFC (me included, take the annotation RFCS posted over the years, they
are awesome but the one thing I dislike is the syntax). I doubt
everyone have time to go in details and understand to the teeth what
each and every feature does. I instead recommend that you look at Dan
Ackroyd's repository which he linked in his reply.
Similar to him, I'm also fairly against the development of such a feature.
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net
I am not gonna personally answer a survey everytime I vote against a
feature. This is why we have a discussion period to raise issues, of
course not everyone will raise all their concerns to each and every
RFC (me included, take the annotation RFCS posted over the years, they
are awesome but the one thing I dislike is the syntax). I doubt
everyone have time to go in details and understand to the teeth what
each and every feature does.
If a person doesn't have the time or inclination to read into the
details of an RFC, and also doesn't have time or inclination to engage
in discussion about it, and also doesn't have the time or inclination to
give even the briefest of justification about why they are casting their
vote a particular way to help inform future discussion...
Well, they shouldn't be casting a vote in the first place.
That's not to suggest everyone should need to be able to analyse the
patch line by line, but if a person is cleary that disengaged then IMO
they should do the honourable thing and refrain from voting.
MR.