Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101558
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com designates 209.85.218.68 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKpPFYZOdjdWfi5peK4ZYXF27FZtc+qvvPUo7kso-Nkrzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AM3PR02MB10101275F5450B5E70661977BA080@AM3PR02MB1010.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <LO2P265MB02538FA3A56D1DCF39F812B1BA190@LO2P265MB0253.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAPg3Xx+rQrUc=Y48+OSfGVPQicME_TLVNuF4xGOOhOB49B0FSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuS39M7Una4dgxKgG+2w+oSmuDufciON+9xV1CW34YbqEw@mail.gmail.com> <CALKiJKpPFYZOdjdWfi5peK4ZYXF27FZtc+qvvPUo7kso-Nkrzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 08:41:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CACXBjujpa8xY79qr6MB7uVFNJabharow1Lt2z04+K9rqtpDPjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d5a94a606d605620a2105"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: High resolution timer function
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

--001a113d5a94a606d605620a2105
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Definitely. Small, uncontroversial changes have never required an RFC.
Let's not add process just for the sake of process.

-Rasmus

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5 January 2018 at 10:38, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2 January 2018 at 13:55, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why is this bypassing the RFC process?
> >
> > That's a very good question.
> >
> > Although I'm pretty sure an RFC for this would pass unanimously, stuff
> > should have to go through voting rather than relying on no-one
> > shouting loudly enough.
> >
>
>
> Just as a counter-point to this, I understand that many (Westminster
> style?) parliaments have mechanisms to skip uncontroversial votes by first
> requiring a show of hands or voices, and only "dividing the house" (making
> everyone get up and register their formal votes) if there is dissent.
>
> I think Anatol's intent here is similar: if anyone says "Nay", we can
> proceed with an RFC and vote; but if it's already unanimous, why spend the
> time, when we could be moving onto other business?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Rowan Collins
> [IMSoP]
>

--001a113d5a94a606d605620a2105--