Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:103928 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25811 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2019 19:23:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wm1-f68.google.com) (209.85.128.68) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2019 19:23:37 -0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id a62so3062763wmh.4 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:03:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XUmijSNz0oPI4CFhHdAzEfxLCs1dlXXtW/9QHFtoPj0=; b=l1Tej/sFdgknWHv/2vgFZ9m+xaw7AZOHfWNaMnbaAnDBVu1r4DF8RLwIVFZtPufJEW toFKib9eHeoj7UZtsybrliCAnUo93u999a8MvlPNYLk+Avx/WFahJk/v2O8/iqjtVtW+ 97ejGQl3JUv2gxFxX4VFWyv6QpPEPpesk685DCBm50X1gmyNgEwwEgSMTjbT+WOc5k6Y rqHUtpaQe4QGb8+U4lbCNEB/MUk3Xnfp/PFrEwN/2Rv7lp7n/MOUS9FXJEj7CZTBLBkz b7owo3yws77MnFqTnP4l4eh92p2zR4/aRlpuo9Rx9addpKduGgIir1TWFVE6p0BirQWB 2Mjw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XUmijSNz0oPI4CFhHdAzEfxLCs1dlXXtW/9QHFtoPj0=; b=nQd6BWSQ7B1fLQ1mBUjq530fKLAfXr2OLwWeVe6EGaGWQgR42RGifW953uR1Zqvvnq TDGqYk+MYSElvUKwjiUGYH4w2kxjiGbBLfLEgwBD2gZlXlV2Iwfvquw/NM/ON6oH8x8W dNIR/7L894DPXrwQXx2cMwRT9AR6FgpDLCrYOVs/9pMdLG+nCp2Wh64ykS7sOD88ryxB +8umphsylEWOGWH0rWNTV7u4MKCTuM11SrlNqhzPH7D7UXzzIueEvyJoXmSJGMWNmz+2 mvxk+fa4f4m9ptzPMzNiLZeC7r/qF0VRPWwLigP3rEHb6qskx9k/85C28m48OZLLoKID ZpTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeEUo94X5aA+ul7ZrIbzDs9Rkn55v9lVLeCIo0CpBRlVlVtkncY w1Q5ry5hWLt7aKg2oS2I8m/A09H4zXQYpIAE6UO/Ew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6XLiIlW61IGhRjBZXU3dqbYHjs305sLlm8FrsHnQ3GxF+AluSDJcLhh9/weoNasoGPzapwdfBfWcDIhYpRmUo= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:ba89:: with SMTP id k131mr29674730wmf.85.1548950611351; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:03:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <03f401d4b96b$18b9dc60$4a2d9520$@php.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:03:18 -0800 Message-ID: To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen Cc: Zeev Suraski , PHP internals list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6def40580c32a7d" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update) From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig) --000000000000f6def40580c32a7d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:58 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen Hi Zeev > > Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski : > > > > Without further ado, an RFC that=E2=80=99s attempting to comprehensivel= y solve > many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily > introduced in 2011: > > > > > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2019 > > I wholeheartedly disagree with the PHP-FIG special exception to who > can vote, call me biased but I do not believe it serves any purpose > and is absurd. People who actively work on PHP, should be the ones to > be able to have a choice, I think that should be reserved for any > contributor who puts effort working on PHP. > > I do understand that we are the language and our work affects the > others the most. However making special exceptions for who can vote > and essentially having a say from an external source in what I in > theory need to help maintain as a PHP Core Developer is terrible. Why > not allow WordPress Core Developers to have a say instead, as their > work has a larger impact on the usage of PHP? (That was obviously a > bit of sarcasm, the last part). We are not allowed to vote at their > individual projects features (nor do we need to have a say if we are > not actively involved in the development of said projects or > organizations) and I stand very strongly behind that belief. > > Besides this, it also creates uncertainty about who elects such, and > simply should be dropped from the voting RFC as it was already fairly > unclear from the original one. > > The contributors appendix also lists ChangeLog, SVN Migration etc, > something to keep in mind if this RFC is moved forward to filter the > list. > > > Do I understand the PHP Packaging Decisions right that it requires to > vote for a timeline for each version? I remember we have different > opinions raised regarding the time to a new major version (should we > have 7.4 vs go to 8.0, same for the 5 to 7 transition back then > regarding a 5.7). This is the only issue I can think of and should be > changed to requiring a vote if there is a dispute in regards to what > the next version should be. As I don't really wanna vote just to vote > for each of the minor versions of 8 once a year when its the most > logical reason to go to 8.1 from 8.0, and so on until we reach the > point where the next major is considerable. > > > I think changes like the requiring a patch for RFCs is a very welcomed > addition. > > -- > regards, > > Kalle Sommer Nielsen > kalle@php.net > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Given how complex and controversial this question of restricting who can vote is, I propose that it be moved to its own RFC instead of being bundled with this one. It would certainly boost likelihood of passage, if nothing else, as there are a lot of good ideas in this RFC. --Kris > > --000000000000f6def40580c32a7d--