Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52986
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: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: Voting Process
Thread-Index: AQHMI806ZvSrHX0eA0uHhLv/QUtbJJSvVakg
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 22:27:13 +0000
Message-ID: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A49306664@il-ex2.zend.net>
References: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net>
 <4DEBE420.50005@sugarcrm.com>
 <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930624C@il-ex2.zend.net>
 <4DEBFE9F.102@sugarcrm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DEBFE9F.102@sugarcrm.com>
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
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> Currently the "Feature selection and development" basically says "we'd ha=
ve
> a public vote on features". It doesn't specify how exactly is the process=
 for a
> vote, and while again I think your proposal is good, I don't see why it h=
as to be
> part of this RFC - e.g., if we agree that we have to have RFCs and formal=
 non-
> ML public vote, let's fix that and then talk about how exactly we do the =
vote.
> The RFC itself says nothing of "how", so I don't see why we should mix th=
e
> question of "should we do it" with "let's decide how exactly we going to =
do it".

I can't really agree here.  Just watch what happened last week, when we mov=
ed ahead to a vote - the whole thing was IMHO rushed and messy.  That's exa=
ctly why I don't think we can leave the details out.

The way I see it, we can't employ the voting part of this RFC unless we can=
 agree on rules on how this voting works;  It's fine that we don't decide e=
xactly how we're going to do it.  But then, it means that we don't get to d=
o it until we do decide.

What makes the most sense to me is to separate the decision making process =
into another RFC altogether.  If people feel it's premature to discuss that=
 process - that's fine, but I don't think we can hold the stick at both end=
s, and start using a voting mechanism before we even agreed on the basics o=
f voting in the first place.

Zeev