On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:30 PM Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Am 30.07.2019 um 17:14 schrieb Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net>: > > > Zeev > Before I answer on point - I'd like to thank you that despite the fact you clearly disagree with me - you wrote your message in a courteous, respectful tone. And now, on point: > You can either silently ignore somebody or announce it. They're both unacceptable, when the feedback is on point - even if you (the figurative 'you') completely disagree with it. > You may consider it a courtesy to have it announced so that they don't > wonder why they are not being replied to. > There's absolutely nothing courtesous about it. Both behaviors - silent ignorance and announced ignorance - are rude. It's debatable which one is worse - but they're both unacceptable. > Everyone is free on his own who to listen to and who to ignore. > Not everyone. Not people that are requesting comments on their proposals. There's a reason we call RFCs RFCs. Folks who decide to move on with the challenging and tedious process of changing the language, MUST be willing to do what it takes. And it absolutely means defending their proposal, including from folks who may have issues with them. If you're not up for it, do not propose. If you propose, be ready to discuss it in good faith, including with folks with opposing views who take their time to write detailed feedback. It doesn't matter if you know there's no way you will be convinced, or that the other party will be convinced. That discussion is extremely relevant for everyone else who is supposed to make up their mind about the proposal. It's not up to you alone whether it's acceptable. Maybe it isn't for you. > You're free to say that. But it's definitely not up to you to threaten, as > an individual, with "group@". You are not a "we". > I'm confident that if it ever came to that, I'll have the backing of group@, which is why I wrote what I wrote. Perhaps the statement wasn't properly wordsmithed, but that's what I meant. Ignoring on-point feedback - from top contributors, no less - is so much contrary to the spirit on which this project has been based, that it's a no brainer no-no. > I'd appreciate if, now and in future, you would respect everyones free > will in that regard; The free will plays a role in one's decision to move forward or not move forward witha proposal. If they do - it's absolutely their responsibility to defend their proposal if & when folks scrutinize it and find issues with it. That's why we have a long, mandatory discussion period. Opting out is not an option. On a partially related note, I think there might be a more comprehensive solution to polarization we're all (or at least many of us) are suffering from in terms of the language's direction, one that may make both camps happy, without turning every RFC into a contentious fight (and not by updating our rules, but by changing what we offer). I'll spend some time thinking about it and propose it when it matures a bit, hopefully next week. Zeev
