Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56263 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98023 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 23:28:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 23:28:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.153 smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.153] ([67.192.241.153:42507] helo=smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E9/E2-17932-31E5CBE4 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:28:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp25.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id ABCAD2D051E; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:28:16 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp25.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 45F222D049E; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:28:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4EBC5E0F.7070306@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:28:15 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rasmus Lerdorf CC: Pierre Joye , PHP Internals References: <4EBADCE4.9030702@sugarcrm.com> <4EBAF5D8.40608@sugarcrm.com> <4EBB5847.50400@lerdorf.com> <4EBBFE8B.40308@lerdorf.com> <4EBC1564.8090600@lerdorf.com> <4EBC2E68.7010403@lerdorf.com> <4EBC5109.8070907@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: <4EBC5109.8070907@lerdorf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] who can vote From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > As long as it is completely obvious what is being voted on and the > process is followed, the voting RFC rules are fine. It would be nice > though if we could iterate in order to get 2/3 approval on most > proposals. It is these 50/50 ones that are problematic and often boil > down to half the people voting, "We want this feature!" and the other > half voting, "Yes, but this implementation, as proposed, is half-baked." This is exactly the problem. Most of the people vote for generic idea, but later it's taken as approval of specific design and specific patch attached to the RFC - even though I'm willing to bet most of the voters didn't actually read the patch and verified it even works. Which would be fine if there would be additional layer of supervision from core - but "equal vote for all" precludes that, and I see a problem with that. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227