Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104058
To: Zeev Suraski <vsuraski@gmail.com>
CC: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC
 process
Thread-Index: AQHUuxPV4c3mGn0MaUayhQYSQbU3f6XNia2AgABP1YA=
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:04:23 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5PR0701MB296261029D370936016124ADE26C0@AM5PR0701MB2962.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAF+90c-auGYVhCzt-1GpdU1-uZ+xiY7A_FwWSRKftuKBwtszYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <04a401d4bb7f$eb879900$c296cb00$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <04a401d4bb7f$eb879900$c296cb00$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
x-tmn: [05gw4uHUtbl7Tn5Orm63unSEiymApdzoXsP5JDl6FzGsessudrMUxujt+x1djL4v]
x-microsoft-original-message-id: <7C6B65B1-FA1F-47F9-B636-54984EABD845@hotmail.com>
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;VE1EUR01HT095;6:B/mfe12IPp2N1Du7wid+YAgxvKvbUtoAsw/yWL7N07eWJAIfBpOYoKbIyG9ai9qmypX04yJY6ulz0656BK33/ec2PnKdnEkMU0271u0hcGLWY1iqo0IR0LyyI5cZ8NwjMMih77l+KnLvaOvP9Eam12Xf/w5/cwGqqcGkCRNjSp9/emAnF7k/CZXeh1yi7GGVAODYbkJtv0UpIVYEtXMcz5AS78No7ZPZ26IDjEzuC5D+tOMhyhFzXVlrcLMxIyJTNSRbQt1LxvAEK6eX0FRYDvIe7Pdvqtp1iYKNGa2/Xawbx1BKg9aTwij22CQ/sefflRaptoJcJpoyJ0rL6zTfWdHR+NHIwgaG2ijsbv2Q+0BlLSB8wUBcSbA9gVRiO3e+e1NDCMNKZmqcVwtjmNMLl0hoiJwWAkGmiB+Mn56zxWJd1slD+jMoEkEqZ47KTw0+tC6Y3DAiThUnbvHVFkM1Mw==;5:izyV7LOYyv0b9Bpps0inXAdaXWYbNkPSvUDJtbz9vyT2BOQKmV5xbTi+N8DAB2+KXS43Vb+3Nx9N3+6IujtVnRYot+QKXNpta86u43hLX5rHX9tdX/VZRq/Qx8ccCZrozZ78uHL5VHQkHeYdQVTIC67LtnoXulBwy8yGnLreUmLgl5KmjK26P+HDYPsyAq/4vvHxJ2mv2nmH0+2GPEuSJA==;7:SOz0/Z9YwRKbZMA5phsnHWouaMQ4iLVzKWGSW+/HFNnbTr8OLB8NdC/8ce4ErE4nKfChXc/W8wrvKHDO5uh/CCP7YSTNgLqJFxZk+Dg5SL87h/bx2pyKWLE/Co4vHYM0t41ouO6LcphbMYjqTVL53w==
x-incomingheadercount: 65
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(201702061078)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031323274)(2017031324274)(2017031322404)(1601125500)(1603101475)(1701031045);SRVR:VE1EUR01HT095;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VE1EUR01HT095:
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(4566010)(82015058);SRVR:VE1EUR01HT095;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:VE1EUR01HT095;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: WWLgS3p9rbu+h9eYNXUEPDqWjlH3rrhRkmnctMCjdxY7yh+5xcMZ9L5/EdWciGNW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2F415BAAB055104B8C7CA0D55C4F93BA@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 54485d23-c432-40fe-8436-6091d627118c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c7678dd1-8642-46c0-8366-08d689bef87e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 54485d23-c432-40fe-8436-6091d627118c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Feb 2019 10:04:22.4235
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1EUR01HT095
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)

> Am 03.02.2019 um 06:18 schrieb Zeev Suraski <vsuraski@gmail.com>:
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2019 6:24 PM
>> To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC proce=
ss
>>=20
>> Hi internals,
>>=20
>> After discussing the topic with a number of current and former contribut=
ors, I
>> feel that the workflow & voting RFC currently under discussion is moving=
 us in
>> the wrong direction. I will not comment on the rather questionable propo=
sed
>> changes to voting eligibility, as these are already extensively discusse=
d in the
>> RFC thread.
>=20
> Personally, I find any proposal that does not deal with clearly defining =
voting eligibility not only questionable, but a non-starter, that has no pa=
rallels in any other major Open Source projects.
>=20
> The suggestion that the new RFC makes life more difficult, compared to th=
e current Voting RFC, is simply wrong.  It is, in fact, very much the same =
- except it's a lot more well defined in terms of 'what happens if' - which=
 in the years since the 2011 Voting RFC was enacted became a de-facto wild-=
west.
>=20
> It may initially feel warm & fuzzy to  have vague, fluid rules that are r=
emarkably open to interpretation.  But it's not a good idea at all.
>=20
> Zeev

Hey Zeev,

why is dealing with voting eligibility a requirement for a new RFC dealing =
with the RFC process? Everything which is not dealt with, is simply inherit=
ed from status quo. And I personally don't think the current rules regardin=
g voting eligibility, while possibly not perfect, are in such a bad state t=
hat they immediately need a rework. The door to concrete, separate proposal=
s fixing voting eligibility is not closed with this RFC. You are always fre=
e to open a new specific RFC and discuss about a voting eligibility proposa=
l.

In addition, the newly proposed RFC here is absolutely not vague. It is pre=
tty well defined, showing a few clear boundaries. For everything else it is=
 the task of the voter to establish whether a RFC is ready and shall be vot=
ed in as is. It's precisely that which makes a great voting process. In par=
ticular with a 2/3 required majority, I strongly doubt that bullshit RFCs w=
hich are quickly proposed and moved to vote, will ever be accepted. I trust=
 our voters enough to know when something should definitely not be accepted=
.

And I strongly hope that you are not lacking faith in us PHP RFC voters, th=
at you feel like you couldn't trust us to apply sensible judgement to each =
RFC.

Thanks,
Bob=