There seems to be some different point of views how to handle withdrawn
RFCs. As this is a separate point and maybe a more complex point I want
to start this as an additional Thread here.
The Goal is, to not have this argument again against someone taking over
a withdrawn RFC. Means this should end in some rules/guidelines
regarding RFCs. (Advice what would be needed, like for example an RFC,
is very welcome)
As already was noted by someone else, seeing an RFC as failed if it gets
withdrawn has some serious downsides and potential to get abused.
Most obvious the possibility to kill RFCs by increased pressure against
the author. I think that deserves to get targeted, as leading an RFC
which gets some greater public attention creates in itself already some
pressure, not everyone is able to endure.
An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original
author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not
be painful in any way.
Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over,
or should we say the first one wins?
Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
best Regards,
Flyingmana
An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original
author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not
be painful in any way.
Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over,
or should we say the first one wins?
Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
Hypothetically:
An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling
purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands,
of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of
"making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved".
Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down,
new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important
things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the
suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave
up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future
participation.
Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate
forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate.
This is all hypothetical, of course.
-Ronabop
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana flyingmana@googlemail.com
wrote:An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original
author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not
be painful in any way.
Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over,
or should we say the first one wins?
Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?Hypothetically:
An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling
purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands,
of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of
"making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved".Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down,
new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important
things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the
suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave
up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future
participation.Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate
forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate.This is all hypothetical, of course.
This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment
relevant? Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely
can do so using their own RFC - or, for that matter, without an RFC.
Regards
Peter
--
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind
LinkedIn: plind
Twitter: kafe15
</hype
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana flyingmana@googlemail.com
wrote:Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
Snip_>
An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling
purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands,
of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of
"making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved".
Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down,
new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important
things, here!", and continue the loop...
Snip_>
This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment
relevant?
The relevance is in ways to "abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC".
Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can
do so using their own RFC -
Creating a new RFC has a higher barrier to entry, requiring additional effort.
or, for that matter, without an RFC.
I would suggest that random email trolling does not have the same
audience, impact, or formal trappings of a public RFC process.
-Ronabop
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Peter Lind peter.e.lind@gmail.com
wrote:On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com
wrote:
Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
Snip_>
An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling
purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands,
of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of
"making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved".
Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down,
new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important
things, here!", and continue the loop...
Snip_>
This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment
relevant?The relevance is in ways to "abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC".
Ahhh good point, missed that.
Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can
do so using their own RFC -Creating a new RFC has a higher barrier to entry, requiring additional
effort.
If your aim is to clutter the mailing list indefinitely, that's really not
going to get in your way.
or, for that matter, without an RFC.
I would suggest that random email trolling does not have the same
audience, impact, or formal trappings of a public RFC process.
Random email trolling, no. But then again, random email trolling is not
really what we're talking about, is it?
Plus, it's a mailing list, not a forum. The default is that you follow
every thread, and have to actively mute them. Email trolling by splitting
off of threads would actually be more effective than keeping to one RFC
thread - not less effective.
Regards
Peter
--
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind
LinkedIn: plind
Twitter: kafe15
</hype
An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original
author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not
be painful in any way.
Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over,
or should we say the first one wins?
Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?Hypothetically:
An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling
purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands,
of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of
"making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved".Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down,
new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important
things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the
suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave
up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future
participation.Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate
forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate.This is all hypothetical, of course.
-Ronabop
Thats a valid problem.
How is this currently handled for the case, the troll is not willing to
withdraw it?
-Flyingmana
An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original
author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not
be painful in any way.
Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over,
or should we say the first one wins?
Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?Hypothetically:
An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling
purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands,
of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of
"making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved".Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down,
new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important
things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the
suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave
up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future
participation.Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate
forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate.This is all hypothetical, of course.
Thats a valid problem.
How is this currently handled for the case, the troll is not willing to
withdraw it?
It isn't really. Which is what I hopefully think the current process
of establishing our values, guidelines, a CoC and a Mediation Team should
address.
And in an extreme case, with continuous trolling, a "resolution" (RFC
like thing) could be put up for vote with the rest of internals to ban
these people from the project. This is only mostly hypothetical, as it
has happened once in the ~15 years I've been involved, although we
didn't go through a process then. And I sincerely hope that was the last
one too.
cheers,
Derick
Hi,
Le 21/01/2016 21:33, Flyingmana a écrit :
As already was noted by someone else, seeing an RFC as failed if it gets
withdrawn has some serious downsides and potential to get abused.
...
Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over,
or should we say the first one wins?Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
IMO, a withdrawn RFC should not be considered as failed and, unless it
contains a more precise status ('suspended until ...', 'waiting for
...'), it can be taken over by anybody. It is fair to ask the original
author's permission but not sure this must be required.
I would propose a minimal period between withdrawal and takeover (48
hours, 72 hours ?). This could prevent lightning-fast takeover to be
used as a political trick. During this period, people could volunteer
for taking over the RFC but the RFC itself would be frozen.
If multiple people want to take over, and if they cannot agree on
co-authoring, the only fair solution is probably to create concurrent
follow-up RFCs. The STH case shows that it should be avoided as much as
possible but I'm still looking for a better solution.
Regards
François
Hi!
The Goal is, to not have this argument again against someone taking over
a withdrawn RFC. Means this should end in some rules/guidelines
regarding RFCs. (Advice what would be needed, like for example an RFC,
is very welcome)
I think if someone is going to abandon an RFC, it would be a good
practice to ask first if somebody wants to take over. If yes, then
nothing happens. If not asked or asked and nobody responded immediately
but then picks up later, it should be as if RFC work is continuing.
Since vote didn't happen, no reason to treat is as failed.
Yes, people could probably play games with it. But so far we didn't see
it, even if we have a bit of drama, everybody is acting in a good faith
- i.e. if somebody withdraws RFC, it's because they don't want/can't
work on it anymore, and if somebody picks it up, it's that because they
are interested in the same thing.
If that changed, we can deal with it then.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com