On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I think that no matter what we do, CoC, guidelines or teams we have in > place - as long as there'll be divisive RFCs, there are going to be > heated, toxic discussions.
I think the main issue is the whole concept of "divisive RFCs" as a term. An RFC is a request for *comments*. Instead of people saying (paraphrased) "that is crap, unwanted, needless", the whole point of an RFC is to improve the proposals - before a vote is arranged. The recent discussion on Antony's CoC RFC, has very little people/comments trying to improve it, but instead trying to torpedo it because of "why do we even need it? we're not 'toxic'" (again, paraphrased). > Had we had a 90% bar, it does mean that STH wouldn't have made it into > the language, but it also means that we would probably not have the > discussion saga on internals either, and all of the bad vibes that > surrounded it. That however, makes it very easy for a vocal majority to torpedo everything. I think this is only just going to cause more resentment to the few people that tend to vote against nearly every RFC. But - it's an interesting theory. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
