Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106357
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c87_Zd07ftVe29=GdjxhxjkFG+VXfm_ZZ3QWqER50QLuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8hTaL56MQDu6=8+A2iGf9T3kxhj9TMtZdmvwNNROJO3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKoEmeLmf_H4sSUZ3brdqUgtHQH+6V0WAXe-OuPG5zNc5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8a_CWVyVfnt3so_u-0Df5zxwRX1=ASp=BXcOtGggeANg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9aba78c9-f04d-45b8-6c34-ad1c2472ef76@gmail.com> <CADyq6sLrDh4ORdmJ4n9qKmhWjHvOzgvHhQ0PXYnDxS6SBUq6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <75d04139-b944-f204-f988-959fa6f3e305@gmail.com> <CADyq6sLismPxQ5-aztMh35UfOXRAfHTX3imcT04KxEHedJx7iw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8CD3B476-ABF9-4DB7-96D3-217064023854@gmail.com> <CAF+90c-=9HjQHMeTeb5sggKMhtZFGoC7f0766dVavAtpVxLUDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <98616527-805f-3425-d292-1363be26730d@gmail.com> <CAF+90c-cT-vkWKATe+XZxzWEQ9MCLzjF2Wpyop_SXkAAkKwZag@mail.gmail.com>
 <BL0PR02MB558843F6D08933867AF1EC6CACDC0@BL0PR02MB5588.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFMT4NqaST9Jm7BYE-UKrVnB0rNhOY0jNi-_b5YJVY15Mo96Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznyw=9oqF-35e6q7Ru=LaB_siF7=8gdv=oPDSA5KArp8UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <HE1PR0902MB21540A996F9FC3BE2ABC4118E2DC0@HE1PR0902MB2154.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAJHtznx3iPKwfW1fD_Gz7d9aDuH-T2Eenme28rz=aS3AWROi3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznx3iPKwfW1fD_Gz7d9aDuH-T2Eenme28rz=aS3AWROi3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:45:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuSRfG1uwgWSDu5rkiuGu71nZJjwwiFHiEeJXEzD6MugNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
Cc: Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 20:09, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:
>
> If you propose, be ready to discuss it in good faith, including
> with folks with opposing views who take their time to write detailed feedback.

Some of the points raised during discussions are not technical
arguments that can be addressed, some of them are concerns about what
the development experience will be like. They are valid concerns but
it's impossible to give a definitive 100% non-criticisable response to
them.

It's not always possibly to convince everyone that an idea is going to
be a good idea.

This is why we have voting rather than consensus, so that after people
have said the things they want to say, we can have a vote and move
forward, rather than getting stuck and both sides trying to 'win' an
argument where people can have valid differences of opinion.

> There's a reason we call RFCs RFCs.

Yes, so people can make comments on them, not that people have to win
over every voter.

> And it absolutely means defending their proposal, including from
> folks who may have issues with them.
>
> If they do - it's absolutely their responsibility
> to defend their proposal

Zeev, this isn't a rule that has been agreed.

If you wish to change the rules, to include the idea of having a
"long-term view" special committee or similar, please do propose that
as an RFC to be discussed. Or if you want some way of formally listing
"unaddressed concerns" in the RFC, that could also be discussed.

But making vague threats to try to influence other contributors is
completely inappropriate behaviour.

cheers
Dan
Ack