Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52963
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.199.177.89 as permitted sender)
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
CC: Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>, Stas Malyshev
	<smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, PHP Internals
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
 the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
Thread-Index: Acwju4mMVI/geX/lRt2X0REy1lGzyw==
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 20:05:12 +0000
Message-ID: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
 the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

Pierre,

I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications & u=
pdates needed for the RFC.

I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array syn=
tax RFC was executed was the key reason that made me feel these updates wer=
e in fact necessary - I don't think that the way it was done was exemplary =
in any way...

Pretty much each and every point in my email is based on things that I felt=
 went wrong with how we handled the short array syntax RFC:

- There wasn't sufficient time, or nearly any time at all - between when Br=
ian pulled it off the attic, and when a vote was called.  If my proposal is=
 accepted, there'll have to be at least two weeks between when a clearly ma=
rked [RFC] email hits internals@, and when a vote is called.
- There wasn't a clearly marked, separate [VOTE] email.
- There wasn't a clear or easy way of voting.
- No voting period was announced, instead, people were told to stop mess ar=
ound and go vote.
- The author of the RFC wasn't actively involved in the whole process (as f=
ar as I could tell);  There was no official replacement proposer.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.  If you feel that the arra=
y syntax RFC was 'done right' then we have a bit of a gap :)  In my opinion=
, given the lacking process, the short array syntax RFC needs to be redone.

I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my proposal.  I'd =
like to update the Release Process RFC with these suggestions if people lik=
e them.

Zeev