Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105574
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFPFaMJEn=gjk5jAAxR2bF=4Mt3r0FJCm6mbOCReOmyybtAkkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e702a5cc-9567-0591-8f5e-b14aef0766b7@lsces.co.uk> <CAAfnsFU1B61qaPRAh5uNTWMALcV5xmae0Yb1yY9+QaAGLVGx7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <49A4B76C-4C62-4CBE-BA20-FBE56CA29AB0@cschneid.com> <CADyq6sL7m=A=pA1rNBg_CFOoMtfCZn50AfALh9jtLHvn9NRzmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <609E93CF-099B-446C-AD28-04F1D802C9F0@cschneid.com> <000401d4fac8$ae592cf0$0b0b86d0$@roze.lv>
 <CAJHtznz-Dm7ft6qJ6Y6sjnaL4G0cwVVJyakxr_zprhxQzqUkVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPFaML4QTbtJXLuheGwTTT204vY40TeT5TLEX22oYTNrNJ8Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznwnbM54uAzStVfAOjUTgEoDr8XpOFCYdVjgrtZfFgrSJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFPFaM+EGh6zZgSdDXo06wdY==Fujm1JFWFO88EmvggC-fdFJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznztD-UOSoeSApvTMidNo6z20MUWNNBRUW84_JxM0fRq-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904301800070.9606@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAJHtznzSOo1Xbmu3N9C_GEo6woDC0STVR_nVjUCusT65dfPe=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAfnsFWogfyZ=X07EOAZ6V4vSKw89K01WGnddRF=zRP9-FBsdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <961cee8e-8185-b7b2-2b51-838946d2c7d2@gmail.com> <CAAfnsFUhMKf1YYuT1eCF65yfX+FjNAcr_MyAiPM-fiPawTKDLQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAfnsFUhMKf1YYuT1eCF65yfX+FjNAcr_MyAiPM-fiPawTKDLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 00:21:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFPFaM+X5FXuGtK1snKML+aJt1bceUuTye87qMo5vc_8Yxy30A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Kokot <peterkokot@gmail.com>
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000070b5e80587ef0ce1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags
From: george.banyard@gmail.com ("G. P. B.")

--00000000000070b5e80587ef0ce1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Evening internals,

I am not going to go into the details of every email which got sent in the
past two days as I am busy with Exam revision.

Main take away that I got from the previous emails:

1. No discussion:
It is indeed true that there hasn't been a lot (to not say none) of
discussion after the announcement but I hadn't gotten any reply after I
replied to the people who commented on it so, in my mind if there is no
more discussion I don't see why I should have waited longer to bring the
RFC to a vote.

2. Voting structure:
If the voting structure was that confusion, sending a message to the ML
like Peter Cowburn (@salathe) did would have allowed me to stop the vote
fix the structure and bring it back to a vote.
Saying that it was confusion after the vote is ended is IMHO just a way to
not assume responsibility and get your way because the result doesn't
pleases you.

No I don't see the rationale that saying the removal vote isn't an
implementation detail because from my perspective it is.
Because if not wouldn't the secondary vote on the JIT [1] RFC also not be
an implementation detail in this case?

Even though you could say how it was presented it is not a secondary vote
but then you can also considered it as a primary vote, and having multiple
primary votes in an RFC is allowed per the Voting RFC [2].

And if even then this doesn't seem right just render void the secondary
vote, no need to render void the whole RFC as the primary vote does respect
the Voting RFC.


As to why these issues haven't been addressed during the standard RFC
process, I have a couple of theories but I don't think they are worth
putting on this list.

On this note, if I missed anything important please send it my way and I
will try to respond to it ASAP but it could well be another 2 days or more
before I respond.



Best regards

George P. Banyard

--00000000000070b5e80587ef0ce1--