On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:33 PM Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> 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 clarify points; in an email thread, a reader often has to > read the first attempt at conveying something, then follow a series of > errata down the sub-thread. > > As Zeev mentioned, it might be enough to have a standard format for this, > rather than always requiring it. > > Hi, 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 the group as a whole, rather than a person and I know that not everyone might these points as (valid) counter arguments or have different opinions about each. My proposal is to add a name to either a section or argument itself, or perhaps each person could create a page with their counter arguments, meaning the current page becomes an index. This makes it very clear to see who provides which arguments. Regards, Lynn van der Berg
