rfc:review-discussion-period

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
rfc:review-discussion-period [2019/04/06 18:16] – krakjoerfc:review-discussion-period [2019/04/15 06:07] (current) – krakjoe
Line 8: Line 8:
 ===== Introduction ===== ===== Introduction =====
  
-This RFC seeks to review the "Discussion Period" section of the voting RFC, the following problems exist:+This RFC seeks to review the "Discussion Period" section of the [[rfc:voting|voting]] RFC, quoted here: 
 + 
 +<blockquote> 
 +There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required. Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week. The effective date will not be when the RFC was published on the PHP wiki - but when it was announced on internals@lists.php.net, by the author, with the intention of voting on it. This period can be extended when circumstances warrant it - such as major conferences, key people being busy, force major events, or when discussion merits it - but should never be less than minimal time. 
 + 
 +This does not preclude discussion on the merits on any idea or proposal on the list without formally submitting it as a proposal, but the discussion time is measured only since the formal discussion announcement as described above. 
 +</blockquote> 
 + 
 +The following problems exist:
  
   * Language ambiguity - we already removed the words "language feature" from other parts of the document   * Language ambiguity - we already removed the words "language feature" from other parts of the document
   * Minimum discussion periods are not well defined   * Minimum discussion periods are not well defined
-  * We do not deal with stale RFC's+  * No definition of "stale proposal"
  
 ===== Proposal ===== ===== Proposal =====
  
-The discussion period section shall be removed and replaced with:+The "Discussion Period" section shall be removed and replaced with:
  
 <blockquote> <blockquote>
Line 25: Line 33:
 Proposals that are moved to the voting stage too quickly are likely to receive negative votes; It is in the authors best interest to resolve all points brought up during discussion before moving to a vote. Proposals that are moved to the voting stage too quickly are likely to receive negative votes; It is in the authors best interest to resolve all points brought up during discussion before moving to a vote.
  
-Proposals that fail to be moved to the voting stage within one calendar month of the discussion period commencing shall be considered stale: Stale proposals must be re-announced as per the "Proposal Initiation" section of this document, restarting the discussion period.+A proposal in discussion phase that has not had received any input on internals (from the author or otherwise) for the period of one calendar month shall be considered stale: Stale proposals must be re-initiated as per the "Proposal Initiation" section of this document, restarting the discussion period.
 </blockquote> </blockquote>
  
rfc/review-discussion-period.1554574561.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/04/06 18:16 by krakjoe

Page Tools