Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106415
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> <CAJHtznxeouocXqgeHE9CriaxE+wxe0vsiRWMNnuHZadqipcN7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznxeouocXqgeHE9CriaxE+wxe0vsiRWMNnuHZadqipcN7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:45:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAfnsFU-zF73SWsboGRf+Hua8emrcw_SVTLsnK_WOzZyxMKCJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>, 
	"G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again
From: peterkokot@gmail.com (Peter Kokot)

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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, eithe=
r.  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.  Th=
e PHP Group is mostly inactive, and will likely stay this way, but under so=
me extreme situations - it might choose to act (if ever - probably primaril=
y 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 thin=
k 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 everythin=
g is up for a vote.
>
> Zeev
>

Veto has been mentioned here
https://externals.io/message/105201#105558

I'm not having any issues with veto being used here or not on a
previous RFC from people that are in the internals since day 1. I
think we should respect that they have issues with proposals coming up
in recent years, but hopefully group will also understand us - users
and new contributors a bit that we just want to have a bit of cleanup
of legacy things here and there :)

Thanks and have a nice day.
--=20
Peter Kokot