Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107158
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOwTYAu5vCGMw4Dp0v90fGD9OGm6X0dc42iJV35bk1Df_yr_2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJvSBVOPyxUkLsUc2a8z2HSOdGtYk-Jci=DsdeMfa2sQqH1SKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznwizncbEMLOYyLt6MN1XyNzEZjYVMwe7uFuhsEO5_Y=_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJvSBVMSTYD-5GhHAxGzQGbus3HSquuRBU5+JVk=WUdVV5iGJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOwTYAvcKMRK1NmZ3rDmw3g4ExdXM8E3-jcgRYrB7bTJrx9UnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU7fwUhB7uZJTfTig7QZJGdC+3OAKzgMyhr87kjMEzuQbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6W-K_=kcfqXNB0Fbh2KYkz65fGTyahdq8pCLvcphN8sQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6W-K_=kcfqXNB0Fbh2KYkz65fGTyahdq8pCLvcphN8sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:25:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOwTYAt_BLu-N-fcsvUTTXcAc3dBX4gkKjgcuUmknvsy5jEH-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000074d1e90592a82f7b"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group
From: krakjoe@gmail.com (Joe Watkins)

--00000000000074d1e90592a82f7b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Pierre,

I repeat, there are no vetos, for anyone.

Cheers
Joe

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:04, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joe Watkins <krakjoe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Pierre,
> > >
> > > > The RFC process defines a veto and could be applied when needed.
> > >
> > > Can you show me where that is defined please ?
> >
> > In the current version, there is no mention of veto, which surprises
> > me. It was definitively something that was in it. Zeev, Andi, other
> > and myself discussed that part to hell back then. I cannot dig the
> > revisions (the wiki box is extremely slow right now). If it was not,
> > then we failed in the very first version as it was definitively agreed
> > to have that veto (tbc :).
>
> And 500, so I give up digging :)
>
> By the way, the Group could do it anyway given the license and co.
> However, again, the group never did it and will most likely never do
> it anyway.
>
> The key points in my reply were other, which you may consider to
> discuss rather than something that will never happen :)
>
> Best,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
>

--00000000000074d1e90592a82f7b--