Re: [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

Hi! > This is why trying to force RFC authors to respond to every point is > such a bad idea. You try to absurdize the position by taking it to unreasonable absolute. Nobody asks anybody to respond to literally *every* point, no matter how minor. Responding on major objections, however, is expected. > It allows filibustering of RFCs by having people who are opposed to > the RFC by bringing up voluminous complaints. This is described nicely > in a video called "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People > (And You Can Too)" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM8ýoÀÇaMž > É`p¥³´ which > I recommend everyone watch. It is kinda insulting to be called "poisonous" because I try to argue my position and explain my argument. I guess I should limit myself to "this RFC sucks #noway" and we can move our discussions to Twitter. But then I notice there's no objection to the quality of my argument. Only that's it too hard to read it, apparently, because it requires effort. I am astonished that this is a serious complaint... > Zeev, both you and Stas seem to be making lots of noise due to some > RFCs having been passed despite your objections. The whole reason > voting for RFCs was introduced was so that progress could be made even > when some community members objected to an RFC. Again, there's a difference between majority and minority disagreeing and plainly ignoring major objections that will have large detrimental effect on the user base (which BTW can not vote). Sure, a shiny syntax addition could be voted in while most of the voters not realizing subtler problems it would bring - how is it a good thing? Voting is only a part of the RFC process. It we have vote and no discussion, that turns into popularity contest and political game, which is no way to run a technical project. Technical discussion is a vital part of the RFC process. > If you want to change how the RFC process happens, to have a "long > term stability committee" or something similar, please raise an RFC > for it. But just making noise and threats on this list is completely > non-productive. Calling other person's arguments "noise" kinda describes how seriously you intend to treat them. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com