Re: Capturing reasons for votes for historical sake?

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 18:29, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote: > > Would it be possible to add a feature when voting were people either need to type in > a one to two sentence reason why they voted "no" on a proposal Pretty strong no for me. * Explaining exactly why you're voting no can be hard as there can be multiple overlapping reasons for voting no. * It sets up arguments about what is and isn't a valid reason for voting no. * It drives people who might want to vote no away from the project, if they have to take the extra time to justify their position. * The phrase "this is a terrible idea and I don't have enough crayons to explain why to you" would be more likely to be used, and wouldn't add much to the discussion. * Shifts the part of the burden for coming up with a plan for how to get the RFC implemented onto people who are not in favour of the RFC. And the big issue, where possibly I disagree with your reasons for wanting this: > and their reasons are really important when it comes > to future consideration of the same issue This kind of makes an assumption that all RFCs should have some path to being passed. For some RFCs, there just isn't a good path forward for them. > However in PHP we have no way of knowing why people voted against a proposal I think this type of analysis belongs off-list. Which is why: https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/rfc_codex.md btw I think there's a bigger problem on some RFCs being accepted, particularly where people who aren't core maintainers are voting on things that really need an informed understanding of internals. cheers Dan Ack