rfc:rfc.third-party-editing

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
rfc:rfc.third-party-editing [2016/05/12 17:30]
pollita created
rfc:rfc.third-party-editing [2017/09/22 13:28] (current)
Line 3: Line 3:
   * Date: 2016-05-12   * Date: 2016-05-12
   * Author: Sara Golemon <​pollita@php.net>​   * Author: Sara Golemon <​pollita@php.net>​
-  * Status: ​Draft+  * Status: ​Under Discussion
   * First Published at: http://​wiki.php.net/​rfc/​rfc.third-party-editing   * First Published at: http://​wiki.php.net/​rfc/​rfc.third-party-editing
  
Line 11: Line 11:
 ===== Proposal ===== ===== Proposal =====
 This proposal suggests the introduction of a new section to the standard RFC template for "Third Party Arguments",​ with subsections for "In Favor" and "​Opposed"​. ​ The understanding being that any content under "Third Party Arguments"​ may be edited by anyone with wiki karma to add a summary of their argument in their own words. This proposal suggests the introduction of a new section to the standard RFC template for "Third Party Arguments",​ with subsections for "In Favor" and "​Opposed"​. ​ The understanding being that any content under "Third Party Arguments"​ may be edited by anyone with wiki karma to add a summary of their argument in their own words.
 +
 +It is the RECOMMENDATION of this RFC that summaries placed in the "​Third-Party Arguments"​ section be constrained to concise summaries, possibly as bullet points.
  
 If taken advantage of (and it would be optional to all parties), then not only does this provide a unified and consistent place to find established arguments during the voting phase, it ensures a historical record of the discussion in a more accessible format than searching mail archives. If taken advantage of (and it would be optional to all parties), then not only does this provide a unified and consistent place to find established arguments during the voting phase, it ensures a historical record of the discussion in a more accessible format than searching mail archives.
 +
 +Note that point 5 of https://​wiki.php.net/​rfc/​howto already calls for updating RFCs with arguments made on the list.  This proposal seeks to extend point 5:
 +
 +  * Codify how summaries be presented into a rough format
 +  * Update the default template to encourage RFC proponents to actually DO it.
 +  * Grant implicit permission for parties other than the RFC author to make a class of edits to an RFC without explicit permission
  
 ===== RFC Impact ===== ===== RFC Impact =====
Line 21: Line 29:
   ​   ​
   ==== In Favor ====   ==== In Favor ====
-  Arguments by individuals as to why this proposal is a good idea.+    * Concise list of arguments 
 +    * Summarized for easy review
   ==== Against ====   ==== Against ====
-  Arguments by individuals as to why this proposal is a bad idea.+    * Longer paragraphs are permitted, but brevity should be considered where possible.
  
 ===== Proposed Voting Choices ===== ===== Proposed Voting Choices =====
 Adopt these new headings and codify scope-limited editing of other'​s RFCs during discussion phase. ​ Requires 50% + 1 Adopt these new headings and codify scope-limited editing of other'​s RFCs during discussion phase. ​ Requires 50% + 1
  
rfc/rfc.third-party-editing.1463074252.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 (external edit)