On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara <rona...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingm...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original > > author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not > > be painful in any way. > > Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over, > > or should we say the first one wins? > > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? > > Hypothetically: > > An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling > purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, > of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of > "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". > > Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, > new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important > things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the > suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave > up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future > participation. > > Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate > forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate. > > This is all hypothetical, of course. > > This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment relevant? Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can do so using their own RFC - or, for that matter, without an RFC. Regards Peter -- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 </hype>
