Hello all While my conclusions differ from Zeev's on this topic, this document addresses many valid point as to why this RFC in its current form shouldn't be voted in. I believe it should be added in the original RFC as a counterargument — I think internals@ recently agreed that adding counter arguments to RFCs was something that's allowed?
Zeev, while I agree with many of your points, you also don't offer a concrete solution. You've been very vocal about the RFC process being broken, which caused the majority of what people consider "disruptions" on internals@ lately. I think the community would benefit if internals@ started to put things into practice. That means making a CoC and reevaluating the RFC process. Maybe this can only be done if key core members came together IRL for a few days? I reckon money might be a problem here, but this could probably be solved via crowd funding. If 5 to 10 million people are using PHP, chances are there a quite a few companies invested enough in its future to actually contribute to it, financially. I do think Dan's RFC lacks in several areas, though he actually took the time to try and improve the system. I hope core members like yourself will make the same effort in the near future, so that months of having the same discussions can finally end. Kind regards Brent On 27 Sep 2019, 08:00 +0200, Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net>, wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:52 PM Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net> wrote: > > > > > Speaking of 'disruptive behavior' that the antithesis of promoting 'good > > will' - this pseudo RFC is a textbook example. > > > > I wrote an analysis of this outlandish proposal that I hope some may find > useful: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/analysis/prevent_disruptions_of_conversations > > Zeev
