Re: [RFC] Union Types v2 (followup on github usage)

On 8 September 2019 11:42:07 BST, Brent <brendt@stitcher.io> wrote: > - We could add community guidelines, clearly stating that RFC comments >should stay on topic > - People could be appointed to moderate the comments, allowing >contributors to focus on the code instead of community management > - Conversations on GitHub can be locked as a last measurement. >Repository members can still comment. > >I fear that separating the main discussion from the PR will cause >unnecessary confusion: important, generals remarks could be made on the >"main thread", and I think there's value in keeping these remarks >together with everything else. I'm sceptical of that as a solution for two reasons: Firstly, the conversations weren't necessarily wrong, they were just a slight drift of topic. The problem is not removing them from the PR, it's encouraging them to move somewhere else. I fear that saying "sign up to the mailing list and repeat that point in a completely different format" will be taken up less than "make a new thread on this same list/forum". Secondly, the problem is partly a technical one: GitHub PRs have very poor support for replies and sub-threads, so even on-topic discussions that don't relate to a specific part of the text are hard to follow. I think Nikita's suggestion is a good one: use a PR for making targeted suggestions to the RFC text itself, but raise the general points on the main list. That might even include saying "I've added a handful of suggestions relating to X" and discussing the wider issue that links them. I agree it would be interesting to experiment further, and I think this hybrid approach would be a good one to try next. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]