Hi all, On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Matteo Beccati <p...@beccati.com> wrote:
> On 25/01/2015 09:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > >> I am a bit disappointed by the result, as I think it would be a good >> change, but I am much more disappointed by the fact that that 20 people >> voted against it and not even half of them - I would say maybe 1/5 of >> them - chose to participate in discussion even minimally and explain >> what is wrong with it in their opinion. I understand when everybody >> agrees there's no need of the flood of +1s, vote is enough, but >> disagreement by its nature is more diverse. I think not bothering to >> discuss and then just voting "no" with no explanation is not how the >> healthy RFC process should be working. >> > > I was supposed to send an explanation after voting, but I forgot. Sorry > about that. > > I initially was going to vote "yes" as I kind of liked the concept. What > made me change my mind was the implementation decision. I fully understand > the reasons behind a conservative approach, but I just didn't like the > "magic" (doesn't exist, but it's ok to call it). I would have voted yes for > the approach #1 as it looked more consistent, and #2 seemed to be slightly > worse than what we have now. I liked the idea. PHP is dynamic language and user should be able to enjoy the "magic", IMHO. I also would like to know the reason why vote against a RFC. Without feedback, there is no improvement. Comment plugin to the wiki, perhaps? Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
