Re: RFC Process: more productive conversations

> Am 25.03.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:02, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote: >> >> I don't believe forcing people to explain their votes actually does that. >> >> It does something quite similar, of forcing people to try to >> articulate how the RFC needs to change for them to change their vote >> from a no to a yes. At least that is how I have perceived the >> intentions of people who have asked for 'no' voters to explain their >> vote. >> > > It also ties in with the view previously expressed that we should restrict > voting rights because (my paraphrase) "too many people can vote for > something they don't understand and won't have to maintain". > > Asking people to say why they voted the way they did helps explore this: > can people give a cogent reason for their vote? Shall we then also expect people that vote "yes" to explain why they voted for the feature? To see whether they understood what they where voting on? Then we should couple the vote to a comment in the wikinpage and without a comment there's no way to vote. That way all the information would be readily available in the RFC and no one would need to add comments after an RFC was voted upon. Because IMO that information as well as the process that lead to acceptance of the RFC are also important to afterwards make clear why that feature was implememted the way it was. So all RFCs and also all voters would be treated the same. Just my 0.02€ Cheers Andreas