Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106366
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c87_Zd07ftVe29=GdjxhxjkFG+VXfm_ZZ3QWqER50QLuA@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>
 <894d50cd-f043-5010-1691-a4aef59c38ab@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <894d50cd-f043-5010-1691-a4aef59c38ab@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:22:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuRzPYVn_OJQhmsdw7UX5eRVbZ-JrGWKkK4ZdrO6cCTVug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
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 20:01, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you do not intend to work with others, that's fine, don't - but
> then it can not be a part of the community process. At least
> if we still want to have a community and not just a bunch
> of people committing changes whenever they feel like.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter.

You and Zeev have disagreed with several RFCs that have passed, and
apparently you're perceiving that as "people committing changes
whenever they feel like".

People are not just committing changes whenever they feel like.

People are going through the RFC process, and only if the vote is
successful do things get merged.

People are free to vote based on whatever factors they like, and
having the RFC author not address some points that you think are
important should be on of those factors. And you're obviously free to
announce that you're voting no because you think some points haven't
been addressed, and that might influence how other people vote.

People choosing to not reply to every detail of negative feedback does
not mean they are "committing changes whenever they feel like".

That you're perceiving it as that, is a problem of perception on your
side, not something that can or should be fixed on the community side.

cheers
Dan
Ack