Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56254
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4EBC2E68.7010403@lerdorf.com>
References: <CAH-PCH79fgb+isqZyeZcsSjY6WWJ=ZjGY2oEMgdrjO2=eBFC8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_sKnS4nRpfActoUQ3OHst248X6cGp9CP=JZ2WO1wbw4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7qN52+sEfnj3Ud0EyK=B8njNkAGfKzwaeUkDYPPGD3UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c8WmbbdtMMau=HnMEpQ+dhJJDEQzgsTtrn9GCxqvFdZ-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBADCE4.9030702@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAF+90c_rdZ4DpVgZ_hq7yYiDpXPEBaozq9Rf9GD5Kfcga2vztQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBAF5D8.40608@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAFp73Xv2_CJaYvGasrvjf8rgv2=cCNoDW5fvk8UenikCjheStQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBB5847.50400@lerdorf.com>
	<CAFp73XveEuDZSuHb7pz9i=s1xkwigcuqrE9OweQjDW2CjDJpZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBBFE8B.40308@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU70z7aOJqcRk5p-N+YDV5gjJZQwN62xkTYd+Jo1aSAcDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBC1564.8090600@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU4WRP2Xrm2MyEuircUh6u7p=ioUEbTjNdOOTW0=mDTgfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBC2E68.7010403@lerdorf.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:17:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7qRh=y1pbR_5n6PYGAhqg-O9+MVxJzdcsm7xez4AB=+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] who can vote
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 10:38 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> 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.

It is clear to me and I get the feeling here, with Tyrael's thread and
Stas arguments that this agreement is all of a sudden invalid. And
that's where I so strongly disagree.

If that's not the case, and after a 2nd thought, it is actually not
the case, then we can just discard this whole thread and go back to
code and proposals. I only find very disturbing to have to explain and
argue so many times about that only because we have a edge case in a
proposal (which is perfectly valid, that happens, show must go on).

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org