Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53684 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 97964 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2011 21:22:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jun 2011 21:22:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dsp@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dsp@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 217.114.211.66 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dsp@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.66 config.schlueters.de Received: from [217.114.211.66] ([217.114.211.66:63481] helo=config.schlueters.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A8/34-10518-3A79B0E4 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:22:45 -0400 Received: from [192.168.23.102] (p5B2D9444.dip.t-dialin.net [91.45.148.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by config.schlueters.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0C88744A3; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:22:40 +0200 (CEST) Reply-To: dsp@php.net To: Sean Coates Cc: PHP internals Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:22:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <5523253B-A1E8-4B54-BA4B-F562368F62A5@seancoates.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.1 (3.0.1-1.fc15) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <1309382538.6493.7.camel@Tshi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Voting RFC votes closed From: dsp@php.net (David Soria Parra) On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:15 -0400, Sean Coates wrote: > *BUMP* > > It would be really helpful if we could find consensus on this… I feel like the RFC process is stalled until these questions are answered. I'm not the one who decides this. My personal opinion is that the rules do not apply for RFCs older than the voting and releaseprocess RFC. When the RFC was written and proposed the voting RFC was not accepted and therefore you might have written the RFCs with the intention of following a different way to get it accepted. We cannot apply approved RFCs to older RFCs. This is similar to laws (although RFCs are not laws or anything like that at all). Long story short: you can go on with the RFC the way you want, you don't have to stick to the voting RFC, but I would rather recommend to do it anyway. I personally don't have a problem with not sending the RFC mail again to internals. Just my 50ct > S > > On 2011-06-27, at 9:06 PM, Sean Coates wrote: > >> The RFC was accepted. > > > > Ok; so is this "official" now, or does it need to be ratified somehow? > > > > If I clean up my RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/objectarrayliterals) and put it to vote, are these now the rules that will be followed? > > > > Since I didn't use "[RFC]" in the original email to internals, do I need to start from the start? >