On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:02 AM Peter Bowyer
wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>
> > If someone enters nonsense or “n/a” or any value that doesn’t justify
> > their vote or doesn’t appear to satisfactorily justify it according to
> some
> > metric of justification satisfac
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> If someone enters nonsense or “n/a” or any value that doesn’t justify
> their vote or doesn’t appear to satisfactorily justify it according to some
> metric of justification satisfaction, then does that person’s vote get
> thrown out or discounted
> On Mar 25, 2019, at 11:56, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 15:24, Andreas Heigl wrote:
>
>> Shall we then also expect people that vote "yes" to explain why they voted
>> for the feature? To see whether they understood what they where voting on?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Then we sh
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 15:24, Andreas Heigl wrote:
> Shall we then also expect people that vote "yes" to explain why they voted
> for the feature? To see whether they understood what they where voting on?
>
Yes.
> Then we should couple the vote to a comment in the wikinpage and without a
> com
> Am 25.03.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Peter Bowyer :
>
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:02, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe forcing people to explain their votes actually does that.
>>
>> It does something quite similar, of forcing people to try to
>> articulate how the RFC needs to change f
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:02, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> I don't believe forcing people to explain their votes actually does that.
>
> It does something quite similar, of forcing people to try to
> articulate how the RFC needs to change for them to change their vote
> from a no to a yes. At least that
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:02, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:30, Rowan Collins
> wrote:
> >
> > One suggestion for an additional section: update the RFC with feedback,
> > particularly if it is withdrawn or rejected.
>
> I think that knowledge could live separately from the RFCs,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:30, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> One suggestion for an additional section: update the RFC with feedback,
> particularly if it is withdrawn or rejected.
I think that knowledge could live separately from the RFCs, which is
why I'm maintaining https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex
Den man. 25. mar. 2019 kl. 15.30 skrev Rowan Collins :
> > It isn't the responsibility of voters to explain why they're voting no.
>
> It has actually been suggested multiple times that voters *should* justify
> their votes, so that it's clear whether a future RFC could address the
> perceived prob
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:04, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> I've written some suggestions on people could have more productive
> conversations which I'm going to maintain here
> (https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/rfc_etiquette.md), and
> have attached to the end of this email.
>
Hi Dan,
Tha
Hi Internals,
A little while ago Zeev suggested that it was time to update the RFC
process to make it more fit for purpose. As part of that conversation
I would like to suggest some 'etiquette' around RFC discussions.
PHP internals has a reputation for being 'toxic'. While I don't think
it's as b
11 matches
Mail list logo
