On 25 January 2015 at 15:44, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote:
> On 25 January 2015 at 11:26, Peter Cowburn <petercowb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's what the mailing list threads are for, right? > > > If someone has already said a reason on the list for why an RFC should > be voted no, when someone else agrees with that reason it's not common > for them to email, as it could be viewed as generating noise. > Any internals discussion thread can be viewed as generating noise. How are readers to know whether the one post mentioning a particular for/against reason has wider support/disapproval without people saying so in the central discussion thread(s)? If it were a "noise or nothing" decision, I'd rather have multiple people saying "+1" on a particular thought or idea *during the discussion phase* than everyone keeping quiet for fear of being "noisy". Of course, I'd really rather posts be slightly longer and well thought-out than "+1" too. > > Also having all the reasons why an RFC was declined in one place would > make it easier to revisit RFCs in the future. It would allow people to > see if RFCs were declined because people thought they were just a bad > idea, or if there was a problem with a small detail of the RFC, > without having to wade through email archives. > There's nothing, procedurally, preventing RFC authors from summarising the discussion around an RFC on the RFC's wiki page; say after a vote has been finished, or even before the voting period. > > However I think there is a strong risk of people having to give a > reason why they voted no being abused, particularly if it is shown > while the voting was taking place, as people could be harassed for > choosing an 'invalid' reason to reject the RFC. > I too fear the "that's a terrible reason to vote the way you did" knee-jerk reactions. Then again, I could merrily vote "yes" to every single RFC without raising a whiff of suspicion or ridicule. :) > > cheers > Dan >
