Danack wrote: > > It sets up arguments about what is and isn't a valid reason for voting no.
In case anyone was wondering if this was a vague or actual concern: Mark Randall wrote: > > 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. This type of argument leads us on a path to personal attacks. Optionally having some space to record people's reasons for voting either way might be useful. Requiring people to justify their reasons is going to lead to massive non-productive arguments, or even people being harassed for voting 'wrong'. And I agree with Levi, voting "no" should not require any more effort than voting "yes". This thread has focused on people voting no. Although I disagree with some decisions people make, I can't see a large problem of RFCs that have been declined without reasonable reasons. If anything, the problem is the other way round, with people who are not core maintainers, voting yes on things that they can't fully comprehend, and won't be the ones doing the maintenance work for the RFC. But I don't think asking people to prove that they've fully understood an RFC is a useful thing to do. cheers Dan Ack -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
