Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » Handling of withdrawn RFCs »

Handling of withdrawn RFCs

php.internals

Flyingmana

10 years ago
There seems to be some different point of views how to handle withdrawn RFCs. As this is a separate point and maybe a more complex point I want to start this as an additional Thread here. The Goal is, to not have this argument again against someone taking over a withdrawn RFC. Means this should end in some rules/guidelines regarding RFCs. (Advice what would be needed, like for example an RFC, is very welcome) As already was noted by someone else, seeing an RFC as failed if it gets withdrawn has some serious downsides and potential to get abused. Most obvious the possibility to kill RFCs by increased pressure against the author. I think that deserves to get targeted, as leading an RFC which gets some greater public attention creates in itself already some pressure, not everyone is able to endure. An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not be painful in any way. Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over, or should we say the first one wins? Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? best Regards, Flyingmana

Ronald Chmara

10 years ago
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com> wrote:
> An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original > author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not > be painful in any way. > Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over, > or should we say the first one wins? > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
Hypothetically: An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future participation. Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate. This is all hypothetical, of course. -Ronabop

Peter Lind

10 years ago
On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara <ronabop@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original > > author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not > > be painful in any way. > > Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over, > > or should we say the first one wins? > > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? > > Hypothetically: > > An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling > purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, > of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of > "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". > > Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, > new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important > things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the > suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave > up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future > participation. > > Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate > forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate. > > This is all hypothetical, of course. > >
This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment relevant? Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can do so using their own RFC - or, for that matter, without an RFC. Regards Peter
-- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 </hype>

Ronald Chmara

10 years ago
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara <ronabop@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
Snip_>
>> An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling >> purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, >> of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of >> "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". >> Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, >> new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important >> things, here!", and continue the loop...
Snip_>
> This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment > relevant?
The relevance is in ways to "abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC".
> Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can > do so using their own RFC -
Creating a new RFC has a higher barrier to entry, requiring additional effort.
> or, for that matter, without an RFC.
I would suggest that random email trolling does not have the same audience, impact, or formal trappings of a public RFC process. -Ronabop

Peter Lind

10 years ago
On 21 January 2016 at 22:24, Ronald Chmara <ronabop@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara <ronabop@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? > Snip_> > >> An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling > >> purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, > >> of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of > >> "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". > >> Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, > >> new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important > >> things, here!", and continue the loop... > Snip_> > > This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment > > relevant? > > The relevance is in ways to "abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC". > >
Ahhh good point, missed that.
> > Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can > > do so using their own RFC - > > Creating a new RFC has a higher barrier to entry, requiring additional > effort. > >
If your aim is to clutter the mailing list indefinitely, that's really not going to get in your way.
> > or, for that matter, without an RFC. > > I would suggest that random email trolling does not have the same > audience, impact, or formal trappings of a public RFC process. > >
Random email trolling, no. But then again, random email trolling is not really what we're talking about, is it? Plus, it's a mailing list, not a forum. The default is that you follow every thread, and have to actively mute them. Email trolling by splitting off of threads would actually be more effective than keeping to one RFC thread - not less effective. Regards Peter
-- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 </hype>

Flyingmana

10 years ago
On 01/21/2016 09:53 PM, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com> wrote: >> An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original >> author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not >> be painful in any way. >> Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over, >> or should we say the first one wins? >> Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? > > Hypothetically: > > An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling > purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, > of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of > "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". > > Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, > new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important > things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the > suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave > up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future > participation. > > Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate > forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate. > > This is all hypothetical, of course. > > -Ronabop >
Thats a valid problem. How is this currently handled for the case, the troll is not willing to withdraw it? -Flyingmana

Derick Rethans

10 years ago
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Flyingmana wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 09:53 PM, Ronald Chmara wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingmana@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> An RFC could still be valuable for the project, even if the original > >> author leaved, so taking it over should be possible. And it should not > >> be painful in any way. > >> Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over, > >> or should we say the first one wins? > >> Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? > > > > Hypothetically: > > > > An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling > > purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, > > of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of > > "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". > > > > Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, > > new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important > > things, here!", and continue the loop, only finally exhausting the > > suite of RFC mechanisms all of the trolls/marks/puppets finally gave > > up, or were someho0w being administratively prohibited from all future > > participation. > > > > Which, if the PHP email lists were an endless trolling/argument/debate > > forum like twitter or reddit, would be completely appropriate. > > > > This is all hypothetical, of course. > > Thats a valid problem. > How is this currently handled for the case, the troll is not willing to > withdraw it?
It isn't *really*. Which is what I hopefully think the current process of establishing our values, guidelines, a CoC and a Mediation Team should address. And in an extreme case, with continuous trolling, a "resolution" (RFC like thing) could be put up for vote with the rest of internals to ban these people from the project. This is only mostly hypothetical, as it has happened once in the ~15 years I've been involved, although we didn't go through a process then. And I sincerely hope that was the last one too. cheers, Derick

François Laupretre

10 years ago
Hi, Le 21/01/2016 21:33, Flyingmana a écrit :
> > As already was noted by someone else, seeing an RFC as failed if it gets > withdrawn has some serious downsides and potential to get abused. >... > Would we need some rules in case multiple people want to take it over, > or should we say the first one wins? > > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC?
IMO, a withdrawn RFC should not be considered as failed and, unless it contains a more precise status ('suspended until ...', 'waiting for ...'), it can be taken over by anybody. It is fair to ask the original author's permission but not sure this must be required. I would propose a minimal period between withdrawal and takeover (48 hours, 72 hours ?). This could prevent lightning-fast takeover to be used as a political trick. During this period, people could volunteer for taking over the RFC but the RFC itself would be frozen. If multiple people want to take over, and if they cannot agree on co-authoring, the only fair solution is probably to create concurrent follow-up RFCs. The STH case shows that it should be avoided as much as possible but I'm still looking for a better solution. Regards François

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi!
> The Goal is, to not have this argument again against someone taking over > a withdrawn RFC. Means this should end in some rules/guidelines > regarding RFCs. (Advice what would be needed, like for example an RFC, > is very welcome)
I think if someone is going to abandon an RFC, it would be a good practice to ask first if somebody wants to take over. If yes, then nothing happens. If not asked or asked and nobody responded immediately but then picks up later, it should be as if RFC work is continuing. Since vote didn't happen, no reason to treat is as failed. Yes, people could probably play games with it. But so far we didn't see it, even if we have a bit of drama, everybody is acting in a good faith - i.e. if somebody withdraws RFC, it's because they don't want/can't work on it anymore, and if somebody picks it up, it's that because they are interested in the same thing. If that changed, we can deal with it then.
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com