Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110584 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 19759 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2020 13:42:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (76.75.200.58) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 2020 13:42:31 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:27:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Posted-By: 87.81.129.66 Subject: Re: [RFC][Discussion] Change terminology to ExcludeList From: marandall@php.net (Mark Randall) Message-ID: On 16/06/2020 13:14, Michał Brzuchalski wrote: > I'd like to start a discussion period for my RFC which proposes to change > the use of "blacklist" in Opcache configuration with better > self-descriptive terminology. IMHO this RFC should not come to a vote, the current RFC process is ill-equipped to handle such a vote. This RFC, disguised in a cloak of wanting to improve readability, is clearly political. Not political in terms of the inner politics of the PHP internals group, but in terms of the larger world. At the time of publishing, there are currently countless riots, protests, counter-protests, harassment and criminal acts surrounding this issue. It cannot reasonably be argued that the timing is anything other than a political statement, the commonly accepted term would be virtue signalling. In this climate, it is likely impossible to hold a meaningful vote on the issue. Internals on internals are not hidden behind some corporate monolith like Github / Microsoft. Our names are our own, our contact details readily available. Anyone voting against this RFC on the proposal on any of the perfectly legitimate grounds to do so, such as the BC issues, will still immediately be labeled a racist and is likely to receive threats or harassment. Anyone voting for it is likely to receive harassment too. As I said, the current voting system is ill-equipped to handle such a setup. If you expect everyone who wants to have a free say, to have a free say, there must be an element of anonymity that simply does not exist in our current processes. The RFC author has already stated in R11 that they have started receiving harassing emails in relation to it.