Re: Setting up RFC

Jeroen wrote: > They should _not_ be too technical, _not_ too long, but yet as simple as > possible, but exactly as precise enough to be relatively unambigious if you > know about the PHP conventions. For example like that zend engine 2 white > paper. > > But they need to be updated, and not discarded. > > They shouldn't be too hard to create, and definitely not too hard to grok. A > simple template could help achieving this. > > All of the above IMHO, I think that the most basic problems that we encounter are: The information from a given discussion becomes more and more difficult to access as time passes. We perform additional work due to the above problem. If we can have a simple system that is easy to browse and use for discussing these issues, I think that would be perfect... The system would work something like this: Each person has an account in the system. Someone makes a proposal. i.e. Proposal: Foo ------------- Incorporate feature foo into the Zend engine. Abstract -------- The foo feature would do bar and baz. Details ------- ... Other developers would respond to the proposal. All interested developers could discuss the issue on a mailing list or threaded forum - however all interested developer would have to simply and explicitly state their current position on their account. i.e. Zak Greant Proposal Foo ------------ Position: [x] Strongly Support [ ] Support [ ] Neutral [ ] Oppose [ ] Strongly Oppose Position statement (one or two sentences) [ I believe that foo would elegantly solve problem x, while remaining true to the PHP idiom ] A status page would report on the proposals and positions of the various people: Something like: [--- choose a proposal --][+] Once a proposal had been chosen, you would see a list like: Proposal: Foo* -------------- ... Rasmus +0 This should help fix issue x and bug y. Richard - Sascha +0 This proposal supports RFC 10921 in a good way. Sterling -0 RFC 10921 is kind of strange. Torben -1 There is already too much foo in the language. Zak +1 Proposal foo must be obeyed Zeev -0 We don't need foo, we can just modify bar. * "The characters and opinions portrayed and the names used herein are fictitious and any resemblance to the names, character, or history of any person is coincidental and unintentional!" ;) +1: Strongly Support +0: Support 0: Neutral -0: Oppose -1: Strongly Oppose -: Have not commented We would still be able to have good, detailed discussions without being too formal or losing data. We could easily see what was going on with a discussion without having to dig through %$^&-loads of email. Plus everything would be archived for future ref. For really important stuff, we can do an RFC after the discussion. --zak