Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104150
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <03f401d4b96b$18b9dc60$4a2d9520$@php.net> <2455870.Alx54tMJ86@vulcan>
 <CAJW__o0BxHuVnMt_PkDsaD=A1C2HhzcKaYS6frRuYMRYUCJKsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2083237.emE2DNI856@vulcan> <CAJW__o0ELnHtGVAeD3z-nH4ssTeSJDvo3QC5QmyFRgNR3_rgjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <e22f170b-e6e6-cbea-9563-d289d7d3bd03@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <e22f170b-e6e6-cbea-9563-d289d7d3bd03@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 02:22:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJW__o1uB6ajk5_6=694iqKv_Ph0VvUBHHK=sadkKrZdYB1DTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
From: kalle@php.net (Kalle Sommer Nielsen)

Den tir. 5. feb. 2019 kl. 02.10 skrev Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.d=
e>:
> In my opinion, the question =E2=80=9Cwho is eligible to vote=E2=80=9D is =
closely tied to
> the RFC *at hand*.  For instance, str_begins() wouldn't be much of a
> maintainance burden, and whether it should be included into the PHP core
> could very well also be decided by some of those who won't contribute to
> the implementation/maintainance.

I agree with that as long as it is without the PHP Project boundaries,
as the deciding vote is done by actual active PHP.net contributors.
For me the line about who within project can vote is up for
discussion, tho somewhere I feel it should be those with php-src karma
but I do believe anyone actively contributing to PHP as a project by
code should have the ability to vote in one way or another as a
privilege of continuous effect put into the project as a whole. I do
not believe the deciding factor should be in the hands of people
outside the project but that we as developers of the project HEARS
them and respect their voice while putting a sense of personal bias
aside like I replied to Larry in my first mail.

> On the other hand, whether to add JIT
> compilation may better only be decided by those who would have to
> maintain the implementation and who can assess related issues and
> pitfalls (I'm none of those), but not by those who only can fancy =E2=80=
=9Chey,
> JIT is cool =E2=80=93 let's have it!=E2=80=9D  It's obviously hard to lay=
 down
> respective rules, though.
>
> Anyhow, instead of suggesting some =E2=80=9Cgeneral improvements/refineme=
nts=E2=80=9D to
> the RFC process, in my opinion, we should identify *where* exactly our
> RFC process has failed, and *why* it did so.  Then we should eliminate
> the bugs (if there are any).

I think that is a healthy approach, and by reading parts of this RFC
it does sound like Zeev indeed did build on this. With the 3 current
threads we have going, despite a bit confusing, I do think we have
started to open up the can of worms that is our RFC process and slowly
work our way to see what we can do to improve that.

--=20
regards,

Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net