On 17.03.2020 at 09:26, Nikita Popov wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:09 PM Jakob Givoni <ja...@givoni.dk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote:
>>> 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

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to