Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104191
Return-Path: <come@opensides.be>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 91196 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2019 19:21:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.opensides.be) (195.154.20.141)
  by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2019 19:21:23 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp.opensides.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id B046D2685D0
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue,  5 Feb 2019 17:02:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at opensides.be
Received: from smtp.opensides.be ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (smtp.opensides.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with LMTP id cmv9cbNmiyKp for <internals@lists.php.net>;
	Tue,  5 Feb 2019 17:02:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mcmic-probook.opensides.be (63.120.199.77.rev.sfr.net [77.199.120.63])
	by smtp.opensides.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DBF526854F
	for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue,  5 Feb 2019 17:02:30 +0100 (CET)
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 17:02:30 +0100
Message-ID: <1652230.Y9ykoU7H0J@mcmic-probook>
Organization: OpenSides
User-Agent: KMail/5.2.3 (Linux/4.9.0-8-amd64; KDE/5.28.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznziES3G6nhRZqsutj1bZdc1HExF0qb6F94UqiLoBcUC6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <03f401d4b96b$18b9dc60$4a2d9520$@php.net> <2734749.8VgiAcunSb@mcmic-probook> <CAJHtznziES3G6nhRZqsutj1bZdc1HExF0qb6F94UqiLoBcUC6A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
From: come@opensides.be (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=F4me?= Chilliet)

Le mardi 5 f=E9vrier 2019, 11:53:01 CET Zeev Suraski a =E9crit :
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I would say that the way
> virtually every other major Open Source project serves as a fairly good
> proof point for my position.  In fact, even with the new eligible voting
> criteria, we'd be well ahead of most other major OS projects in terms of
> the number of people included in the process with full equal voting right=
s.

I do not understand what this proves.

=ABNo other project is doing that=BB is not a strong enough argument toward=
s not doing it.
What is the problem you are actually trying to solve? That some RFCs are no=
t passing?

C=F4me