Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52992
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4DEC0E57.4070003@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:16:39 -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 <zeev@zend.com>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930609E@il-ex2.zend.net> <4DEBE420.50005@sugarcrm.com> <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A4930624C@il-ex2.zend.net> <4DEBFE9F.102@sugarcrm.com> <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A49306664@il-ex2.zend.net>
In-Reply-To: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A49306664@il-ex2.zend.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Voting Process
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

> 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 exactly how we're going to do it.  But then, it means
> that we don't get to do it until we do decide.

Well, we'd have to vote somehow, e.g. on RFC itself :) I agree that 
before that (and including array syntax) votes were kind of haphazard 
and we need to do better. So let's have the voting process RFC. I took 
the liberty of capturing your email, with minimal edits, here: 
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting - please edit/rewrite as you wish. I did 
not add anything about percentages etc. there as I have no idea how we 
could formalize it :)

> What makes the most sense to me is to separate the decision making
> process into another RFC altogether.  If people feel it's premature

I don't think it's premature, quite the opposite. I just think we need 
to have agreement of release process in general (so we could start with 
the actual release process) and then work out details as they come up. 
The first of those would be the voting RFC.
I'm just afraid substantial changes in the release RFC mean we need to 
have new discussion about it and take more time to do it, and in the 
meantime we have nothing at all, so we have to either start the release 
process without anything at all or delay it until we figure out every 
last fine detail. I'd rather have general principles down and when we 
get to the fine details we'd deal with them.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227