[RFC] [Discussion] Third-party editing of RFCs

On 13/05/2016 15:26, François Laupretre wrote [not in quite this order,
I hope I haven't changed the meaning by grouping your sentences
differently]:

Le 13/05/2016 à 15:30, Rowan Collins a écrit :

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.

What does 'genuinely irrelevant' mean ?
Will you accept that someone deletes your comment because he finds it
'genuinely irrelevant' ? Of course not.

No, I think deleting points would be very rare, that's why I gave a
strongly qualified definition of "genuinely irrelevant". You were the
one that raised the notion of "irrelevant" comments, what definition did
you have in mind?

However, I would expect people to edit the wording of a point I added
if it wasn't clear, or if it could be put more succinctly.

Maybe I am not candid enough but do you imagine what it could become on
a controversial RFC like STH ?So, we'll end up with a system
where anybody can write anything and nothing can be removed. IMHO, we
touch the limit of what can be done with a bare wiki.

Actually, given the volume of discussion on STH, I would have welcomed
an attempt to summarise the main points that had been raised, because I
simply didn't have time to read all the mails on the subject, and had to
give up trying.

And yes, such a summary would have been large (maybe in that case a
sub-page would work better than a section, as Davey suggests), but think
of it as proportional to the amount of mail discussion. If the archive
of the mailing list threads covers 100 pages of A4, a summary covering
one page of A4 is still an incredibly useful resource.

I mentioned in a previous message encouraging links to list archives. In
my mind, these sections should not attempt to persuade the reader, or
to demonstrate the importance of a particular point, they should attempt
to inform the reader that a point has been raised.

Another way to solve this need would be to authorize voting as soon as
discussion starts and allow an explanation comment to be associated with
each vote. People could modify their vote and the associated comment
while discussion runs, and it would be easy at any time to get a
snapshot of the current trend and a resume of the raised arguments.

This makes it all too personal, in my opinion. As I said before, I think
we need to encourage the view that RFCs are a collaborative process, not
an adversarial one, and "I intend to vote against because of X" is very
different from "I like this, but one downside I see is X".

The points being discussed might be addressed in future edits of the
main RFC text, or they might be tradeoffs that are need considering, but
everybody voting decides are worth it on balance. Somebody might edit
acting as "Devil's Advocate", summarising points they don't necessarily
agree with, but have seen expressed.

When somebody comes to vote, the "Discussion Summary" (possible better
name for the section / sub-page?) would prompt them to consider the
points that had been raised.

Regards,
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

Le 13/05/2016 à 15:30, Rowan Collins a écrit :

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.

Maybe I am not candid enough but do you imagine what it could become on a
controversial RFC like STH ? What does 'genuinely irrelevant' mean ? Will
you accept that someone deletes your comment because he finds it 'genuinely
irrelevant' ? Of course not. So, we'll end up with a system where anybody
can write anything and nothing can be removed. IMHO, we touch the limit of
what can be done with a bare wiki.

I want to start by acknowledging this totally legitimate concern. We
can get heated sometimes, and I wouldn't put it past one or more of us
(maybe me?) to deface someone else's argument out of spite.

BUT, these Wikis have a history log. And if John Smith removes or
maliciously modifies an argument I've introduced, I'll notice, and
I'll be the first to ask for a public explanation of why he chose to
do so. Maybe they were right to do so, maybe they weren't.
Regardless, that'll put social pressure on one of us to shape up.
Similarly, anyone spamming RFCs with irrelevant arguments can be
brought to task on by anyone else for doing so.

This isn't actually much different than what we have now, since we all
have the (technical) rights to edit anyone's RFC. I've done so on a
few occasions, without asking the author, to fix minor wiki formatting
and typo errors. The extra step being suggested is just explicit
permission to do so in one specific subsection with an implicit
expectation of adding to the conversation.

Another way to solve this need would be to authorize voting as soon as
discussion starts and allow an explanation comment to be associated with
each vote. People could modify their vote and the associated comment while
discussion runs, and it would be easy at any time to get a snapshot of the
current trend and a resume of the raised arguments. This would also allow
RFC authors to know better why people were voting the way they did,
something that was requested several times in the past. Unfortunately, I
don't know if we can associate a free comment with the voting tool we're
using. This could require writing a new vote app.

Even if not done in a pre-vote period, I would love the OPTION of
adding an explanation for votes. I'm a bit more on the fence about
declaring voting intention ahead of time though.

-Sara