Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113721
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <D376DEFE-26A4-4F11-8548-D9454087E9FD@trowski.com>
 <CAAKU0u=edrH2KkPO0fXV=srVgweYeOytdzWDkQXU6mE5OsoSww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuTs6azmxbtXw5a26A12jJ7OB3fjb_=VFy9STU4ai-TugQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <96A0EE3F-A225-4ED9-9306-67F05B0C3CB4@benramsey.com> <CANUQDCj26gajKOPaVSRrKi5NV8mTqd7jf_LbpQyfAzCuosVJrg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANUQDCj26gajKOPaVSRrKi5NV8mTqd7jf_LbpQyfAzCuosVJrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 16:19:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CANUQDCj3rjv120WddC1R0QZ5fUd5tW2XFYPpFXEhxv8UybOsYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Piotrowski <aaron@trowski.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cf77f205be35b55f"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Fibers
From: me@kelunik.com (Niklas Keller)

--000000000000cf77f205be35b55f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey all,

I've closed the vote and I'm happy to report that the RFC has been accepted
with 78.125% in favor (50:14).

I've moved the RFC to the landing state on
https://wiki.php.net/rfc#pending_implementationlanding

Thank you all for voting and taking part in the discussion!

I'll follow-up once the implementation is merged into core.

Best,
Niklas

Am Mo., 22. M=C3=A4rz 2021 um 21:08 Uhr schrieb Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.c=
om>:

> >> I hope others would
>> >> play with it more as well if we had more time. Any objections?
>> >
>> > Yes, I object.
>> >
>> > You've been around PHP internals long enough to see the drama has
>> > occurred on other RFCs where people have been
>> > cajoled/pressured/threatened to either suspend votes or withdraw RFCs.
>> >
>> > Although this RFC is reasonably free from drama, I think it was wrong
>> > for you to ask for an extension regardless of the current voting. Not
>> > only is it improper on its face, but it sets a bad precedent for more
>> > drama filled RFCs.
>> >
>> > cheers
>> > Dan
>> > Ack
>> >
>> > btw I would prefer that all RFC votes were longer (e.g. 4 weeks for
>> > all decisions that don't have an external time constraint), but
>> > changing the end time during the vote is bogus.
>>
>> I agree with Dan. Also, there was plenty of discussion time for this
>> RFC. It=E2=80=99s not like it was rushed.
>>
>
> Hey all,
>
> given the wording in the voting rules, the fact that the RFC hasn't been
> edited to include the new end date, and due to the objections, I think th=
e
> best way forward is closing the voting on the RFC soon. Given no timezone
> is mentioned in the RFC, we can probably go with either UTC or UTC-12.
> We'll close the vote after UTC-12 passed.
>
> Please create a new thread for discussions about the voting rules in
> general that aren't specific for this RFC to keep this thread focused.
>
> Thanks,
> Niklas
>

--000000000000cf77f205be35b55f--