Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56249 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59783 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 20:05:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 20:05:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.210.44 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.210.44 mail-pz0-f44.google.com Received: from [209.85.210.44] ([209.85.210.44:45271] helo=mail-pz0-f44.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 41/70-01205-17E2CBE4 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:05:05 -0500 Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so5697529pzk.3 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:05:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.28.103 with SMTP id a7mr17497508pbh.63.1320955501804; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:05:01 -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 jm5sm23913666pbc.1.2011.11.10.12.04.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:04:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EBC2E68.7010403@lerdorf.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:04:56 -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> <4EBC1564.8090600@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 10:38 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> We are not talking about a specific RFC here. This discussion is about >> changing the current way of voting. > > Yes, and that's what I'm talking about too. Ok, then I guess I don't understand what your argument is. We already agreed that leaders of large projects get a vote and the voting RFC (which you helped write) is quite clear that language changes need a 2/3 majority to pass but 50%+1 for other changes. Could you please clearly state what it is you want to change then? Because so far to me it sounds a bit like you are simply beating up on the people who chose to vote differently from you on this latest RFC. -Rasmus