Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100584
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVq2idPDkiZAS1cuiMwH4nPMJ6uaPaDWZ7SNz5NuM+Pmnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVoiqHxycJ6CDGQm8hXipVZV-a=MD78D2sV7pSXOSnKgvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <C9B54961-2A2F-4B3B-B230-9F5192435FD3@zend.com> <CAESVnVq2idPDkiZAS1cuiMwH4nPMJ6uaPaDWZ7SNz5NuM+Pmnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:19:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAESVnVpOATzU+Wyb5nng31W90EMRrQBAtexQ4-9aJ+ymzYeC4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11403d0a3fb16e055926215c"
Subject: Fwd: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discuss] Increase non-syntax runtime-impacting
 RFC voting threshold to 60%
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

--001a11403d0a3fb16e055926215c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Whoops, just noticed I sent this to Zeev directly last night rather than
the list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discuss] Increase non-syntax runtime-impacting
RFC voting threshold to 60%
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>


On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> Remarkable timing.  In the last few days I=E2=80=99ve been working on a c=
ompletely
> rewritten RFC workflow & voting RFC.  It=E2=80=99s a bit premature, but g=
iven you
> just brought up on of the main points - I want to share it with you.
>
> Ah! Great minds think alike, and apparently so do we.  Looks like you've
put quite a lot more thought and time in, and a replacement standard would
leave less ambiguity than a mere update, so I'll withdraw the one I put up
and wait for you to formally open discussion on yours.


> Note - I=E2=80=99m not going to bring it up for discussion in the immedia=
te future
> - because I=E2=80=99m going on a 3.5wk vacation starting next week - but =
if all
> goes well I think I=E2=80=99ll bring it up for discussion towards the end=
 of
> October.
>
> Yeaaaahhhh, don't you have a conference coming up as well?



> Can you take a look?
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2017
>
> Again, won=E2=80=99t be publishing it in the immediate future so even if =
you
> absolutely hate it, be sure to tell that just to me =F0=9F=99=82
>
> I don't see anything here I don't agree with at first blush.  And I like
the preference towards 2/3 uniformity across implementation changes.  I
just wasn't keen on trying to win support for such an aggro change.

+1 as we used to say. :D

-Sara

--001a11403d0a3fb16e055926215c--