Re: Question/comment about the Array to String conversion RFC

Dan Ackroyd wrote on 19/03/2015 18:11:

Rowan wrote: you should pause, make a cup of tea, and redraft the e-mail. That was the redrafted version.

And yet it still accused another contributor of "being dumb", and demanded they have access revoked. That is not a respectful or proportional response to the situation.

The edits to the RFC were made two weeks ago. In Francois' defence he himself alerted the list to the changes. But the unapproved editing also meant that if there was someone else who was concerned about the BC break, they might not have raised an RFC to revert the RFC, before the cut off time for RFCs. This is one of the reasons why someone editing the text of a passed RFC is utterly unacceptable.

Anyone knowledgeable enough about the process to raise such an RFC would, at worst, have expressed confusion about the validity of the edit. Note that the text of the vote remains "Yes to replace E_NOTICE with E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, No for no change." so it's kind of obvious that's what was agreed to. There is no inline editing of the text to make it look like this was always the case, and the wiki provides full history to anyone who cares to check. Again, I agree that editing the RFC was wrong here, but I think a "please don't do this again" would have been sufficient. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]