While I think there still might be a seed of a good idea here, I am
not going to pursue it at this time. I believe that it could be
misused to distract from productive conversations.
Before it can be discussed further, the PHP project needs to have a
Code of Conduct to prevent people who are in s
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:34 AM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> # Proposal - improve visibility of negative feedback
>
> When someone creates an RFC, near the top of that page they should
> create a link to a separate page that will contain negative feedback.
> People other that the RFC author are free to
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 14:46, Lynn wrote:
> The current setup allows for a single author to write down counter
> arguments. As the counter arguments seem to primarily be opinionated, I'm
> interested to see who's opinion it is, as two people can have different
> opinions on the same subject. If pe
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:19 PM Rowan Collins
wrote:
>
> Firstly, I would somewhat question why you need to know who holds an
> opinion. RFCs, and any dissenting opinions, are not manifestoes in
> elections, they are information presented so that you can form your own
> opinion. They should not be
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:54, Lynn wrote:
> Taking the current RFC (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counterargument/deprecate_php_short_tags) as
> example, how do we as reader differentiate between people's counter
> arguments? When I read those points, I feel like this is something agreed
> upon by t
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:33 PM Rowan Collins
wrote:
> The key difference between an RFC and a discussion thread is that it
> presents a summary or synthesis, which can be much more easily digested
> than a full discussion. It is also, crucially, editable, so can be reworded
> or corrected to clar
On 5 August 2019 14:33:53 BST, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>When someone creates an RFC, near the top of that page they should
>create a link to a separate page that will contain negative feedback.
>People other that the RFC author are free to put whatever negative
>feedback think is appropriate on that 'n
>
>
> 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
