Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106367
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>
 <CA+kxMuSRfG1uwgWSDu5rkiuGu71nZJjwwiFHiEeJXEzD6MugNA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtznw2JUkhJSLKvHAA3RyzASKPus-1yAgOa6MHXN6ZOO=tHw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznw2JUkhJSLKvHAA3RyzASKPus-1yAgOa6MHXN6ZOO=tHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:31:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuSYPdHV72C_U3iPBx4sxbLsQmhCMYsRmP9d6hh56m2s6Q@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 Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 09:50, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:
>
> This was not a threat of any kind,

"If we need to pull rank with group@ here, we will."

"I'm confident that if it ever came to that, I'll have the backing of
group@, which is why I wrote what I wrote."

Those are threats.

You were threatening to have an ill-defined group of people force
changes in how RFCs are carried out.

Please don't make threats. And also don't make threats and then
pretend you're not making threats.

> Even without reading Stas's messages in detail - their length alone suggests

"Their length alone."

"Their _length alone_".

This is why trying to force RFC authors to respond to every point is
such a bad idea.

It allows filibustering of RFCs by having people who are opposed to
the RFC by bringing up voluminous complaints. This is described nicely
in a video called "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People
(And You Can Too)" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM which
I recommend everyone watch.

Zeev, both you and Stas seem to be making lots of noise due to some
RFCs having been passed despite your objections. The whole reason
voting for RFCs was introduced was so that progress could be made even
when some community members objected to an RFC.

If you want to change how the RFC process happens, to have a "long
term stability committee" or something similar, please raise an RFC
for it. But just making noise and threats on this list is completely
non-productive.

cheers
Dan
Ack