Afternoon Yasuo, Maybe, it is our fault - the person who created the RFC.
In an ideal world, during discussion you should collect legitimate unresolved objections, and have those as "no" options on the vote. If when it came to vote time, the options were: Yes No because X No because Y No because Z No I think most people would be happy to provide a reason, if you have it listed. It should be listed, because it should have been brought up during discussion. Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, and you may get lots of no votes still that don't provide a reason. But it doesn't need to be ideal to give us some clue of where to take the RFC next. Many people don't like the idea of requiring a reason, but I'm sure the same people would provide one if it were listed as a voting option. What they don't want is to have to constantly defend their decision after it's been made, which is in some sense reasonable. Cheers Joe On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> > wrote: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins > > Requiring 2/3 majority is reasonable. > > I'll vote yes for this if people who are not in favor disclose the > reason why. Just voting "no" for a RFC is not constructive. Improving > a RFC is difficult without reason why it is not preferred. Decision > could be based on wrong assumption and/or misunderstanding sometimes. > > Could we have comment plugin for this? It does not have be to a > comment plugin, if there is better plugin for the purpose. > > Regards, > > -- > Yasuo Ohgaki > yohg...@ohgaki.net >
