On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 14:46, Lynn <kja...@gmail.com> 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 person 1 writes down "option A is bad > because of X", person 2 wants to write down that option A is also bad, but > not for the reason mentioned by person 2, and person 3 wants thinks the > arguments mentioned are actually pros and not cons, I don't see how that is > possible right now. >
Dan's proposal covered that: > In the (hopefully) rare cases where the people providing negative > feedback can't agree on how that page should be formatted, they may > create a new negative feedback page and also put a link to it on the > actual RFC page, next to the other 'negative feedback' link. > That being said, I feel like this should be more of a personal summary per > person so everyone can look back what the opinions were and why someone > voted yes or no. > That sounds like something rather different from what Dan was proposing, and something that's been discussed before: require voters to give reasons for their votes. I won't go into the pros and cons of that right now, but will highlight why it's fundamentally different: A "negative feedback" / "counterargument" / "dissenting opinion" page is by design a *summary*, designed to *reduce* the amount of reading required to understand the additional viewpoint; a page for every user on the list would not achieve that design goal. This also comes back to the distinction between consensus and majority. If no two participants in a discussion can agree on even a summary of what the issues are, then we have a far bigger problem than how many wiki pages to create. Most voting reasons would amount to "I agree with point 4, but disagree with points 3 and 8", rather than needing to restate the whole case. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
