Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52966 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66949 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2011 20:16:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jun 2011 20:16:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.113 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.113 smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.113] ([67.192.241.113:57048] helo=smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 46/ED-26000-424EBED4 for ; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:16:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4F227D0382; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 16:16:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 9C2D7D037E; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 16:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DEBE420.50005@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:16:32 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeev Suraski CC: Pierre Joye , PHP Internals References: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net> In-Reply-To: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward)) From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 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 like them. I think these voting process additions totally make sense. But I am not sure it makes sense to put everything in one release RFC. The reason for that is that we don't want to endlessly amend and improve the RFC without having it actually agreed upon, I would rather prefer to agree on what we agree, have it as base for the future and then add other stuff. I've noticed a tendency on the list to lose the major goal behind endless amendments and tweaks and not doing what we agree on because we disagree on some minor detail. So maybe it would make sense to have release RFC separate (without spelling out the voting process there) and voting RFC separate which would define the voting process? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227