Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56239 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37739 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 18:18:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 18:18:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.212.42 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.42 mail-vw0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.212.42] ([209.85.212.42:37242] helo=mail-vw0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A8/9C-01205-B651CBE4 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:18:19 -0500 Received: by vwl1 with SMTP id 1so2971228vwl.29 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.17.3 with SMTP id k3mr16451712pbd.69.1320949095826; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.200.5] (c-50-131-44-225.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.44.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm23210452pbj.18.2011.11.10.10.18.13 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:18:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EBC1564.8090600@lerdorf.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:18:12 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: PHP Internals References: <4EBADCE4.9030702@sugarcrm.com> <4EBAF5D8.40608@sugarcrm.com> <4EBB5847.50400@lerdorf.com> <4EBBFE8B.40308@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] who can vote From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) On 11/10/2011 09:44 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > That's another myth spread by the opponents of making our process > open. All RFCs proposed has been proposed with patches, implemented by > the proposers, with or without the help of other core developers. > Nobody ever succeed (except the alternative array RFC which did no go > further than draft) to propose something without a clear&clean > implementation. I'm sorry, and with all respects, this is FUD. We are not talking about a specific RFC here. This discussion is about changing the current way of voting. -Rasmus