Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:103937
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net;
	h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type;
	b=RjcEms+/Cdgo+s/xvKQR00tnlUCS4f2bYJlWVwtCjxDb6UqeBulKNKpcZtn8Qx
	vtMS6nr63CYtrV3Jsn/2QyRi9kheFNuZmicZrCOrtwVOBmvO+wqy1vAyXOyAQqCM
	H0IJDwYVFDPbYT1nKdqVaTUep0Io4SWtrmZXEVdvqZAOE=;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <03f401d4b96b$18b9dc60$4a2d9520$@php.net> <CAJW__o1q3e1+1DoFVE3dpUdn=f-AnPHuVXpM+6jruQYYrJ6PSQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJW__o1q3e1+1DoFVE3dpUdn=f-AnPHuVXpM+6jruQYYrJ6PSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:52:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJHtznxq_i3t+sQ9mqxNP8HWLG19Y7RT6cF-XkrOFR9ej30wxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000045d69c0580c3d993"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--00000000000045d69c0580c3d993
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net> wrote:

> Hi Zeev
>
> Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>:
> >
> > 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.
>

That's a very fair point.  I'm personally undecided on this.  It's fair to
say that in 2011, my thinking was that voting rights should be given pretty
much exclusively to contributors.  It may sound like overreaching, but the
reality is that this is pretty much how ALL open source projects work (and
have been working).  The reason it sounds overreaching, is that over the
several years following the ratification of the 2011 Voting RFC - a status
quo of "virtually anybody can vote" took hold, and it's now fairly
entrenched in people's minds.  It's still very, very awkward when taken in
the context of how OS projects behave in general.
The thinking behind PHP-FIG (and for that matter, having some
representation from WordPress, yes, I'm not kidding...) was to create
something which goes a bit farther than what's usual in an OS project -
because of the status quo we have today.  Making it a bit easier to
digest.  But it may be that it's the wrong approach.  I'll be interested to
see what others think about it as well.  I'm personally open both for
extending that list further - or potentially trimming it down - making it
more of a meritocracy, as is customary in virtually all other OS projects.


> 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 agree.  I'll look at the text and clarify it as needed.  Of course it
makes no sense to have to vote on every version from scratch every time.


> I think changes like the requiring a patch for RFCs is a very welcomed
> addition.
>

Thanks for the feedback!

Zeev

--00000000000045d69c0580c3d993--