Dan, On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 8:34 AM Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark, > > On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 00:22, Mark Niebergall <mbnieberg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > This is also a bigger policy question for other seemingly-abandoned > > RFCs. If it is agreed that a new RFC should be created in this scenario, > > I've added some notes on the page https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto > > I had some words already prepared from something I will post > separately, but may as well post here also: > > Mailing list etiquette - > https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/mailing_list.md > > Mailing list etiquette for young'uns - > > https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/mailing_list_for_younguns.md > > RFC attitudes - > https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/rfc_attitudes.md > > RFC etiquette - > https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/rfc_etiquette.md > > Most of the stuff in there is just etiquette rather than rules, so > probably isn't appropriate for the wiki. > > Thanks, these are actually very helpful and insightful. > > > I did leave Benas as an author to give him credit for the work he did. > > Although well intentioned, that's probably quite a no-no. Putting > someone's name on something they don't necessarily agree with is > likely to cause drama. I've added a note on that also. > > > With the reverting, valuable community input was dismissed. An effort > should > > be made to address applicable previous community input instead of just > > reverting it out. > > Probably not. > > It's up to other people to persuade RFC authors why something should > be included, rather than RFC authors having to take time and energy to > justify why they are reverting unapproved edits to their RFC. > > But yep, if you want to do it as part of a separate RFC, go for it. > I'll be doing that as a separate RFC, after the typed constants RFC settles. > > cheers > Dan > Ack >
