Den tor. 19. mar. 2020 kl. 10.41 skrev Mark Randall <firstname.lastname@example.org>:> How is the RFC author expected to document the reasons people are voting > no, if those voting against do not take the time to give even a brief > explanation of why they did so either prior to the vote during the > discussion period, or as part of voting? > > An unexplained "no" vote carries just as much weight as a yes vote, > while being demonstrably less valuable to the community. At least when > voting "yes" you're basically saying you agree with the arguments made > in favour as presented by the RFC.That fully depends on the topic in question. We have a lot of people who are voting thats not actively involved with the core development of the language itself from a code perspective. This means that also any random voter that just votes yes causes additional work on the hands of the active code maintainers. I think last year's vote on the JIT here is a great example of the complexity that I think a very low percentage of the voters in favor understands. Why are we only attempting to harvest the negative thoughts (with the word negative chosen carefully here as voting "No" is seemingly an offense to some), why do we not also record why a feature was voted in? Take the recent Stringable interface RFC, now we have one special interface that is magically added but only for objects containing __toString(). A valid question (to me at least, given I voted against it) would be why we would want this almost seemingly random magic to occur but only for this one instance. Since no such data is recorded either, I can only assume that this is acceptable to most. My point here is that it does both ways. If you wish to hold a survey for such fair enough, but I do not want such to bloat RFCs so that it morally questions my choices when I vote in the sense that I think is best suited. I understand the curiosity but I do not wish for us to fall so deep because someone on Reddit or what not believes anyone who votes against something has to be pulled in for questioning. -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen email@example.com
On 19/03/2020 14:25, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:> Why are we only attempting to harvest the negative thoughts (with the > word negative chosen carefully here as voting "No" is seemingly an > offense to some), why do we not also record why a feature was voted > in?Well a significant part of the purpose of the RFC is to make the case for why it *should* be done, and the benefits in doing so, and only to bring it to vote once the negatives have either been resolved, or are just down to personal preference. To vote yes is to state your overall agreement with the arguments made in the RFC. If you've read up and want to vote "no", I think that is perfectly fine and should be fully encouraged, but do the decent thing for your fellow developers and explain why so they're not left trying to guess. Ultimately, how can an RFC ever be improved to be more widely acceptable if the people voting in the negative don't give feedback?