Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52984
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=L7XMr7xDjku1frK1q+PnfHrrDsXGXCPVkYPt/3/98MbbeosfA0OBZ5mu8DjIDYer0C
         K4WSvjv/ylexUHT7GMeC8NLly7LFkxfCVJ361cPl78gR4OBWJG9MAYT4VPE6ES+oF7wB
         AQB4V76bujghEGRcxiq2z1LUc1C2MbunBC0so=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net>
References: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 00:25:54 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=GBMqE-_iuRtEG9W4eSseNbN63kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on the
 wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi Zeev,

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> Pierre,
>
> I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications &=
 updates needed for the RFC.

Same here :)

> I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array s=
yntax RFC was executed was the key reason that made me feel these updates w=
ere in fact necessary - I don't think that the way it was done was exemplar=
y in any way...

Well, it was done in a way without having an official way, so no, it
was not perfect.

> Pretty much each and every point in my email is based on things that I fe=
lt went wrong with how we handled the short array syntax RFC:
>
> - There wasn't sufficient time, or nearly any time at all - between when =
Brian pulled it off the attic, and when a vote was called. =A0If my proposa=
l is accepted, there'll have to be at least two weeks between when a clearl=
y marked [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 =
around and go vote.
> - The author of the RFC wasn't actively involved in the whole process (as=
 far as I could tell); =A0There was no official replacement proposer.
>
> I just want to make sure we're on the same page. =A0If you feel that the =
array syntax RFC was 'done right' then we have a bit of a gap :) =A0In my o=
pinion, given the lacking process, the short array syntax RFC needs to be r=
edone.

As I agree on everything you wrote here, I don't feel like we need to
redo it. The votes result is pretty clear, despite 2-3 people not
willing to vote for whatever reasons:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote

All votes happened again after the alternatives have been proposed or
discussed. One would have voted against this RFC if any of the
alternatives was better. Anyway, if enough people thinks they want to
re do it (3rd time IIRC), so be it.

> I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my proposal. =A0=
I'd like to update the Release Process RFC with these suggestions if people=
 like them.

I'm all for theses changes and updates.

Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org