> On Jun 30, 2024, at 11:10 AM, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote: > I strongly favor an opinionated RFC where the RFC author did their research > and makes it clear why the proposal is the right choice and backs this up by > proper arguments. Of course this doesn't mean that the RFC author should not > listen to the list discussion, but the high level details should be clear > right from the beginning. As of now the RFC still has some open questions > regarding "core functionality" and even intents to leave them as a secondary > vote.
With respect, I completely support your right to choose what you favor. However, I would like to suggest there might be some negative consequences to your approach and request that you reconsider your what you favor. Yes, if an RFC author does their research and makes it clear why the proposal is the right choice and backs this up by proper arguments then it makes for a better RFC which can more easily be reviewed. OTOH, it limits the pool of RFC authors who can successfully achieve that bar to only those who know what research needs to be done and which arguments resonate well resonate with list members. Effectively it limits the successful pool of RFC authors to the list of prior successful RFC authors who — through experience — have developed enough knowledge about what research needs to be done and which arguments resonate well with list members. Yes someone can overcome these experience barriers by submitting numerous RFCs that fail and over years of time eventually gain enough knowledge and experience to succeed, but realistically how many people will go through that gauntlet? The problem with the approach is there over time there becomes is a diminishing number of individuals who can and will submit RFCs, and the language slowly dies: https://thenewstack.io/why-php-usage-has-declined-by-40-in-just-over-2-years/ Currently the culture of this list is people submit an RFC and if they can endure the crucible to come out the other side their RFC may be adopted. But few can endure that crucible. Further, brainstorming on the list — as recent evidence has shown — is effectively impossible. The experienced RFC submitters know to go off list and work with other experienced RFC submitters to prepare an RFC prior to having to endure an onslaught of criticism from this list. The problem for new RFC writers is they don't know who to ask nor have the clout to approach people to get such collaborators. IMO it would be better if the culture here approached would-be RFC writers differently. I instead experienced RFC writers provided a bit of mentoring to new RFC writers, encourage them to cultivate their ideas in a version-controlled repo off this list, but also have the mentor call for list members to collaborate with the would-be RFC writer in a discussion forum on their repo. Once those collaborators feel the RFC is fully-baked then they could present to the list. If that culture existed, your strongly favored well-researched and clearly-argued RFC could be the norm rather than the exception. Food for thought? -Mike P.S. I currently have a repo for an RFC where I want to make a call for collaboration, but I do not know how to call for help on the list without attracting those who would immediately swarm the discussion forum to flood the channel with criticism before the ideas are even fully baked.
