Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106647
To: Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Preliminary Polling
Thread-Index: AQHVVlLAva4N3ObQJEW9kAXp+wdzu6cCAUwS
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 06:26:02 +0000
Message-ID: <DE5C47F3-03D8-4458-8E12-0183AAE929F8@zend.com>
References:
 <CAOwTYAvwTFdQb_fSEJn086feKWHUMom8zaXysAQ-M-fq=FJEMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
 <CAOwTYAvwTFdQb_fSEJn086feKWHUMom8zaXysAQ-M-fq=FJEMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: zend.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b045f8d2-ca75-4f6a-ab73-08d7246e1bac
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Aug 2019 06:26:02.4808
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: cdMqI27CAWfGY/IZjiY0QKIRSxbzapDlGVxrNhsbt/xWMQe1+hanEu1w+rjSDUtomY0bf/Bbex9v7K9Rl9b954yTCB8njmGfPf+hk3Mlz1g=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR02MB5673
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Preliminary Polling
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

I'm on vacation so only at a high level:

- If it's anything remotely similar to the one for P++ (abrupt, done withou=
t any coordination with the author, goes into a vote with immediate effect,=
 grossly misrepresents the idea while refusing to fix that even after the f=
act, pretends to be an RFC even though it's not, and with perceived mandate=
 to shut down discussion) - then absolutely not.  The side effects from thi=
s instance still need to be cleaned up.

But - I think it can actually be a good idea as a semi formal toll for auth=
ors to know whether they should continue to invest their efforts in a certa=
in idea.  As long as it is designed to be a helper tool for authors - and n=
ot a method for folks to shutdown discussion.  It can also be a good indica=
tor for authors whether their idea is likely to pass or whether they should=
 substantially evolve it (or better explain it's merits) before moving on.

Zeev

> On 19 Aug 2019, at 7:55, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net> wrote:
>=20
> Morning internals,
>=20
> I've got a sort of fuzzy idea to make provisions in the RFC process for
> preliminary polling.
>=20
> It seems there are several situations where a preliminary poll makes sens=
e,
> it would have made sense for the p++ discussion and saved us a week of
> wasted time. It also makes sense when the RFC author is not sure whether
> they want to invest time in an implementation, or even long drawn out
> discussion.
>=20
> They would be non-binding, of course, and allowable from the time of RFC
> creation, with a limit of one preliminary poll per RFC.
>=20
> Is this making sense to anyone else ?
>=20
> Cheers
> Joe