Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115797 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 7446 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2021 19:42:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 24 Aug 2021 19:42:01 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22E61804CF for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-pf1-f175.google.com (mail-pf1-f175.google.com [209.85.210.175]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-f175.google.com with SMTP id m26so19353503pff.3 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=p70X4U27nBL4rpY1hV0dJJvghQ0+7WMK5Lj1WCZDctc=; b=F/UR9iujl3IeWoAxXLH8bUINYPHh3x5baMKREE1oYukvxMvuMjrDt7w1O0GrPv32WZ MrTvsoTt3h9rogO4GMgaQsv5Z1olH36CGqgiLLWqGoo71kNtcS3Pkd22+NfOKwjboJ6F QZxXKwlWR/VTsJoIACwTnJGx/DVM3t3OqgRBwtjrMdGzxLaM62hI0Q2ljKM46AVwsCXB EuPaFaOcz/KV5OWYy2ZYNv+gMEEr7XnHJRGS4Uow08xGHfLMN2NXGiZm26E9FJBg4pCv j2UXlvkY0mAohqxDsa6DLSxQsbo35uuadFY9zpuL6Cgn0FOTh7L8xdYZjinOdPubGHt9 /pmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=p70X4U27nBL4rpY1hV0dJJvghQ0+7WMK5Lj1WCZDctc=; b=ORCXp6apsNBFQeYy5diPPtG5PPtxZaGpbmtwWgKatzOLCy4IJG/Rg05KyE6WpoB8oo BYw9seSVnyysp8c2AbDE6ReFsWtrNA09XK1NqGDIH6DaCtNIR7YNF39b7wly/SV2UJ6J QPkCPvjD0ZDTcU3LotuYXpnn6+C5Z3iDSvxyRgNbQwNZ6XS7xfcKEEBEeiHOBXYo/4Kc qo8cIubzRZBr/ZBRxQnvPoO/lV6iNNiEB1eOubnusQnRMgBU4zrH+g/T+VaSVGApFji/ OgPcsu5BMvGSNpRQFQJK+CpPAIZySm3Ud56JjJiSFKfw+NG5NU1KRJC1tYq7Tggf/ne5 IjGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530higrqk1JrCsmJFCkVAvBJifjMu8lZJhB5KbcGu3wUIbLVePyb PsH36UJDv6oP/XaM3TVQUU8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzH1FzGqddLO1PLcdNm1J2H4Y3GQM61E50ndOblMskaqBROySnbQo20VQPjFpQWz5m1O5zR8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a62:834e:0:b029:3b3:4b25:2352 with SMTP id h75-20020a62834e0000b02903b34b252352mr41057606pfe.18.1629836159322; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (node-1w7jr9qrfzx6rnb52ovv9fx8n.ipv6.telus.net. [2001:569:7a73:1f00:58a5:4f84:fa4a:cb07]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 141sm20430407pfv.15.2021.08.24.13.15.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:15:57 -0700 Cc: Derick Rethans , PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <48D54138-2930-4935-B979-9A9DE9B403F1@gmail.com> References: To: Deleu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Guidelines for RFC post feature-freeze From: tobias.nyholm@gmail.com (Tobias Nyholm) Hey Marco.=20 I know you are not a bad person and Im sure your intention is to bring = more clarity and to add something that is helpful.=20 And to state something I hope is obvious: I am not accusing you for = trying to reduce the role of Release Manager or anything else.=20 > I'm interested in understanding how the proposal gives this impression The fact that you unprompted (as far as I can tell) decided to in detail = specify how RMs should make their decision about an RFC is giving me a = strong signal that you don=E2=80=99t trust the role of the Release = Manager. The timing of your RFC is also unfortunate assuming you don=E2=80= =99t want to imply they are doing a poor job as they just got some = criticism in a different thread.=20 I may be wrong and the current and previous release managers feel like = they really need another policy dictating their work, if so I really = hope you worked with a few of them while you drafted this RFC.=20 // Tobias=