Hi! > Without a required discussion period, there could be slightly more > 'incentive' for RFC authors to respond as quickly as possible, to 'get > the discussion out the way'.
I see it exactly opposite - since we have no quorum requirement, declaring the vote as soon as possible if a couple of people like your proposal and nobody objected yet seems to be winning strategy. By the time people analyze it more in detail and decide to voice objections the vote would be half done, and by the time they read the answers and want to continue the discussion, the vote would be finished. The right thing in this scenario would be to vote "no" immediately to any RFC that you didn't read yet and then start the discussion. This looks like rather wrong process. > It should be made really clear to people raising RFCs, that choosing > to have the minimum voting time, particularly if the discussion didn't > seem to produce a clear consensus can be, and possibly should be, > interpreted by voters as a reason to vote against an RFC. The problem, again, is, as you said, you don't read internals for weeks. I may also have periods where this happens, and I suspect others too. Now you come back and discover a blitz RFC already in the second week of voting, and you don't even know what it's about. So your choice is - read it and ask questions now, and take chance that the vote would be done before you even get an answer, or immediately vote "no" on all unknown RFCs and then maybe change your vote later. I don't think encouraging such things would create a good process or be encouraging to new RFC authors. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
