On 20 September 2014 15:49, Leigh <lei...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 September 2014 15:37, Johannes Schlüter <johan...@schlueters.de> > wrote: > > > > It is unclear what a "no" means. Might be a related to the patch the > > design, a misunderstanding or due to a critical issue ... in the end a > > vote creates "losers" with little feedback. > > > > But well, I'm saying this from day one of the voting. > > > > johannes > > > > This is my opinion exactly > > Some people who vote no are involved in the internals discussion, and > that's great. But some people vote no without a word. How do we know > they even understand the impact of their vote? Without their feedback > how can the proposal be improved? > > Even if they say "I'm voting no because of all of the reasons stated > by Person X", that's enough to know that more than one person doesn't > like a specific aspect, and makes it a higher priority for > improvement. > > This is exactly the case for the “Yes” voters too. I’d be for having some avenue (um... internals, or… is that the perfect place?) for giving two cents [voluntarily] about a voter’s decision or indeed lack thereof. Ideally, the atmosphere would be open *and inviting* (the latter appears to be a problem here) where a pitchfork-weilding mob won’t descend on anyone who happened to make a vote, one way or the other.
In the past we’ve had people editing wiki articles (not RFCs) with their own thoughts as attributed annotations. This has obvious issues, but it would be a) in writing, and b) directly associated with the RFC, and c) *not* a conversation. > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
