On 19/03/2020 03:46, Levi Morrison via internals wrote:
The burden of documenting the historical reasons for "no" should be placed on the RFC authors, not the voters.
How is the RFC author expected to document the reasons people are voting no, if those voting against do not take the time to give even a brief explanation of why they did so either prior to the vote during the discussion period, or as part of voting?
An unexplained "no" vote carries just as much weight as a yes vote, while being demonstrably less valuable to the community. At least when voting "yes" you're basically saying you agree with the arguments made in favour as presented by the RFC.
But saying no... without offering any kind of input or debate? How does that help anyone improve things?
Stas asks how I would intend to ensure people are engaged without a 500 word essay? The answer SHOULD be that I nor someone else should have to. Each individual voter should have the self disipline to refrain if they haven't put in the necessary work.
In the absence of that self restraint, yes, requiring some kind of reasoning at the time of voting is entirely appropriate, and then it should be up to the community to decide if people are trying to deliberately flout the spirit of that requirement and take action accordingly.
I'm not suggesting anything exam-like to prove the voters knowledge, but it *should* provide at least some qualitative feedback for the RFC author and the wider community.
Mark Randall -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
