Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106413
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net;
	h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type;
	b=lgGfGmJdqWbTfG76Kbfq4LBCR8DkY3II3pc68DmgmKDK5bmZOAoXamrtl+zUAk
	8fhyQ14UgTUM9L1X7fwqTDRrAON+Gb2BswMSsTwFd+8YQ1LOBGiG4CBRFRQ0IFxT
	D3OAy+qE2Z6nn1lZaGG9MgbmOa5T5tDv3PjknlWuMcrwU=;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFPFaML19B_RehrUQLEy_oFae-H5r3+BpUGg=GF1js83cJpJqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPKYkKxHkQojFnCs09htRFvTrV_SReQV7YVo6RxRSmuN9H_Q0w@mail.gmail.com> <CALKiJKrXatW9Va0bjsUQD+TCCge=HcMzyV8Uf+rq+_s9xoyyuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFPFaMJKq7rqY0ZSPuimWVTY8ZZc=jXJS3__fNRnvBfp+W3PXg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPhkiZy-5Z0CLMUCZ_0OKaUrONrbVfZztfvRcOMUvjEFRp9Xqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAfnsFU_ROGbfPqo33xgVH=nZ_6D7bS_4NkC8YXnOF45_82Z6A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+kxMuTa5DDee9Hu5d5DHxndpkNcu25g7qUAcvAf1x0ajN9dfA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuTa5DDee9Hu5d5DHxndpkNcu25g7qUAcvAf1x0ajN9dfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 17:14:38 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJHtznxeouocXqgeHE9CriaxE+wxe0vsiRWMNnuHZadqipcN7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>
Cc: Peter Kokot <peterkokot@gmail.com>, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>,  "G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059f0d1058f879049"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--00000000000059f0d1058f879049
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot <peterkokot@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that
> > certain people from the group internals can veto particular RFC.
>
> Please could you point to where this alleged rule has ever been
> written down or agreed to?
>

There's indeed no such rule that any individuals have a veto power.


> Although certain people may have claimed this is a rule, it's never
> been agreed afaik.
>

I'm not aware of anybody who ever claimed that such a rule existed,
either.  If people are alluding to me - then I don't claim I can veto
anything;  I think it's also clear from what I think about the short tags
deprecation RFC that *if* I had veto power, that would be an instance where
I'd use it.  The reason we went for V2 aren't because of a veto, but
because of issues in the previous RFC.

With that said - the source code of PHP is copyrighted by the PHP Group -
and it's a fact that is mentioned at the top of every PHP source file.  The
PHP Group is mostly inactive, and will likely stay this way, but under some
extreme situations - it might choose to act (if ever - probably primarily
around things that have to do with process).

I think when we adopt a Code of Conduct one of the things we need to
> make explicit is that "claiming authority that is not codified" is
> explicitly a thing that will not be allowed in internals discussions
> as it seems to keep happening and results in a lot of confusion, and
> frustration.
>

The more accurate word here is 'if', rather than 'when'. But I don't think
there's a need to wait for a CoC on this one - it should be clear that no
individual has veto powers, but it should be also clear that not everything
is up for a vote.

Zeev

--00000000000059f0d1058f879049--