On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:09 PM Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net> wrote: > 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, I am putting myself at a disadvantage here. I am not suppressing Stas' voice, only removing my own ability to argue against it, and effectively strengthening its position. Everyone else can still see his arguments and be swayed by them. If they're good arguments and well delivered, they will be. If they aren't -- well, that's hardly my own fault. I read RFC feedback and engage in discussions, because I want to deliver the best proposal I can, which incidentally is also the most likely to be accepted. However, not all forms of feedback are created equal. It is a staple of polite debate that criticism be actionable -- it is not sufficient to register your disapproval, you also need to suggest possible avenues for improvement or alternative approaches that may be pursued. If I have found that a particular source of feedback has, over many years, been consistently and persistently negative and only on rare occasions yielded an actionable insight, I believe it is my prerogative to remove this source from my personal consideration, especially if it has a negative influence on my mental well-being. Regards, Nikita
