On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> 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 >>> >>> >> 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 that >> anybody else can add anything to my RFC. >> > > > In my opinion, the notion of "owning" an RFC is not always helpful - we're > here to work together to come up with the best solution, not to compete for > kudos or defend a fixed position. That said, I recognise that the main body > of the RFC benefits from having an identified "lead editor", so it stays > consistent. > > If this section is intended as a collaborative summary of the discussion, > then I would say you would have no more right or responsibility than anyone > else to police it on "your" RFC (and no less, either). > > 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. However, if it's just that you don't think a particular > argument is subjectively valid, then the fact that someone holds a contrary > opinion is a useful piece of information to the reader, and should stay. > > Think of it like a comment section, "the opinions below are not > necessarily those of the RFC's sponsors". Perhaps just split it out into a separate document that is concurrent to the RFC… - Davey
