On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 00:50, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:05 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd prefer Dan's approach and having a seperate page linked at the top of
>> the RFC.
>>
>> I'll start voting tomorrow and will link to your page in the same message
>> as the voting an
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:05 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> I'd prefer Dan's approach and having a seperate page linked at the top of
> the RFC.
>
> I'll start voting tomorrow and will link to your page in the same message
> as the voting announcement.
>
Thanks George. I created a page with a counterar
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, 20:47 Zeev Suraski, wrote:
> As we head closer to the vote - and in light of what I said towards the end
> of my message in https://externals.io/message/106256#106278, as well as
> the
> points Dan articulated regarding the current issue of negative feedback not
> getting the
As we head closer to the vote - and in light of what I said towards the end
of my message in https://externals.io/message/106256#106278, as well as the
points Dan articulated regarding the current issue of negative feedback not
getting the same level of visibility as the RFC itself - I'd like to fi
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:34 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> So, recently there was some discussion about RFCs that have passed
> despite there being some strong objections to them.
>
> I think there is a fundamental problem that could be addressed here,
> in that the arguments 'for' an RFC have muc
So, recently there was some discussion about RFCs that have passed
despite there being some strong objections to them.
I think there is a fundamental problem that could be addressed here,
in that the arguments 'for' an RFC have much higher visibility than
the arguments 'against' an RFC. The RFC pa
