RFCs aren’t popularity contests… The responsible team should evaluate not how liked/disliked a particular proposal is, but rather, how well motivated it is and if there are serious concerns or not.
No they’re not. But you’re missing my point, which is that it’s useless to repeat the same feedback twice. The fact that it comes from 2 different people is irrelevant. Repeating the feedback would just cloud the discussion in question without actually adding any information.
What argument?
Argument as in “a reason not to implement an RFC”. Both up and downvotes in pretty much every post except the topmost few are less likely to be seen. This is what I mean by discoverability: It’s not immediately obvious that a remark a user wants to make 1. has been made and 2. Given that the remark was made, it’s not obvious where it is for all except the most trivially short of discussions.
The problem is that a downvote is devoid of arguments entirely, while an upvote on a comment that explains a concern or discusses an alternative is a sign that someone agrees with that particular argument.
Whatever goes for upvotes also holds for downvotes, i.e. one conveys precisely the same amount of information as the other. Just with a flipped “scalar value”. If you don’t want people to be able simply convey disagreement without actually motivating it, why should they be able to express agreement without the same kind of motivation? People err both ways, and that should be accounted for. To simply disallow downvotes is to recreate Facebook: a meaningless echochamber of “me-too!”.
I assume that the responsible teams (lang, libs, …) read enough of comments to see if there are consequential concerns brought up once it is time to evaluate an RFC during PFCP.
Perhaps I should have chosen a different term here than “core team”. What I meant was “the people most busy developing Rust”, typically employed by Mozilla.
