Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52991
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 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=OyKsUKReiRamGoS0mndJnzWEeUQJAWrSOw5MrLcCPHLA4n52RY+oj8EevxLy0pMYx7
         Hw9ntlIs75uZT5Pb9SYxRzHefNXfQJ8FvhMBy0IS46/ORnK4lx9pBM4xoYYKT5i49c9X
         uHT5CntmR27VYF5vADk/2zGxrt9EY16SOGBKI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930670C@il-ex2.zend.net>
References: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net>
	<BANLkTi=GBMqE-_iuRtEG9W4eSseNbN63kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930670C@il-ex2.zend.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 01:16:26 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=42oTQDHdKMkyqD1h7FFAb8k6oxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: 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)

take #4......


Hmmm, not sure I like the comparison (with Egypt).

> Major parts in the process weren't executed properly (I've spelled them o=
ut so I won't repeat them).
> It's quite possible that if they were executed properly, we'd have differ=
ent results.  Perhaps not, maybe even probably not, but unless we do it rig=
ht we'll never know.

Are you saying that most people having voted +1 once, then a 2nd time
+1 and finally a 3rd time (editing the votes to put it under the right
syntax), would suddenly be totally against it?


> Also, I suspect that you'd find that there are more than just a couple of=
 people who 'refused to vote'.  I'm betting that there are plenty of people=
 who had no idea a vote was going on, and plenty more that weren't entirely=
 clear on what exactly it is they're voting on - with all the discussion th=
at happened on internals@ spreading in half a dozen different directions.

Given the active people, both in discussions and developments, I keep
my estimation to 2-3 refusing to vote and the rest not giving it
enough importance or does not care at all.

In any case, if you feel like we have to re vote, and many do as well,
then so be it.