https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
-Sara
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
>
> Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
>
Yes please! It certainly would make it far easier to see the arguments for
and against and have a history of said arguments rather
This would be great if everyone just wanted to state their stance and be done
with it. It reminds me of the election pamphlets that my state sends out to
inform voters of what the upcoming ballet measures are and what various folks’
for/against arguments are. But those arguments are collected i
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Robert Williams wrote:
> It reminds me of the election pamphlets that my state sends
> out to inform voters of what the upcoming ballet measures are and what
> various folks’ for/against arguments are.
>
I was literally looking at said pamphlet when the thought oc
Sara Golemon wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
I would hope
it would effect the discussion for the positive as opinions wouldn't
need to be restated over and over again, and when it comes times to
vote, those doing th
Hi!
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
>
> Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
I like the idea, though I would suggest some limit on how big each
argument should be (maybe informal recommendation) to not turn that
section into a copy of the ML discussion.
--
St
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
>>
>> Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
>
> I like the idea, though I would suggest some limit on how big each
> argument should be (maybe informal recommendation) to n
Le 12/05/2016 à 19:33, Sara Golemon a écrit :
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
-Sara
As RFC author, what should I do with irrelevant arguments against my RFC
? Should I add a reply ? More generally, I don't like the idea t
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
>
> Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
Sure. I'll adopt this from now on regardlessly.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developme
On 13/05/2016 11:07, François Laupretre wrote:
Le 12/05/2016 à 19:33, Sara Golemon a écrit :
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
-Sara
As RFC author, what should I do with irrelevant arguments against my RFC
? Should I add a
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 11:07, François Laupretre wrote:
>
>> Le 12/05/2016 à 19:33, Sara Golemon a écrit :
>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
>>>
>>> Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
>>>
>>> -Sara
>>>
>>>
>> A
Le 13/05/2016 à 15:30, Rowan Collins a écrit :
If somebody adds something that is genuinely irrelevant (e.g. based on a
simple misunderstanding of the RFC) then somebody else (*anyobdy* else)
could remove it.
Maybe I am not candid enough but do you imagine what it could become on
a controversi
On 13/05/2016 15:26, François Laupretre wrote [not in quite this order,
I hope I haven't changed the meaning by grouping your sentences
differently]:
Le 13/05/2016 à 15:30, Rowan Collins a écrit :
If somebody adds something that is genuinely irrelevant (e.g. based on a
simple misunderstanding
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:26 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
> Le 13/05/2016 à 15:30, Rowan Collins a écrit :
>>
>> If somebody adds something that is genuinely irrelevant (e.g. based on a
>> simple misunderstanding of the RFC) then somebody else (*anyobdy* else)
>> could remove it.
>>
>
> Maybe I a
Hi!
> BUT, these Wikis have a history log. And if John Smith removes or
> maliciously modifies an argument I've introduced, I'll notice, and
> I'll be the first to ask for a public explanation of why he chose to
> do so. Maybe they were right to do so, maybe they weren't.
> Regardless, that'll p
Evening,
I like the idea that we should pay more attention to setting out
arguments, for and against.
Still, I regard editing someone else's work as poor form.
Introducing a way to do that, and relying on social pressure to keep
everyone in check is not a good long term plan ... soun
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Still, I regard editing someone else's work as poor form.
>
> Introducing a way to do that, and relying on social pressure to keep
> everyone in check is not a good long term plan ... sounds great, until
> someone actually does make an
Evening,
> This is why I defined the TPE RFC to scope that permission SOLELY to
the arguments section.
I get that, but it doesn't make enough of a difference, in my opinion.
> We can, and I'd settle for that as a first step, but as the RFC
states, it doesn't do justice to the "Agains
Hi Sara,
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.third-party-editing
>
> Let's make RFCs more useful before AND after voting!
Could you add performance section?
I would like to know performance impact always, but not all RFCs include it.
Thanks.
--
Y
19 matches
Mail list logo