Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:58553
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kris.craig@gmail.com designates 10.216.137.147 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.216.137.147;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH46g5+wEsJ4MAQ+rXrXgvTAag+ye7vM2hb+7FFpxFyJvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cvs-account-2566@php.net>
	<CAKOpQSxaTvC0uAdDB=LDtJHoR1bekgx9RZ0NmTME1Ej1ZMS5Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH5a_PgVm6+Ei51oAZgFKvz-Uj038G5P-WyeNS31F4CYtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSzrcFngjYWmRZ4cc1qaBNxzXjEGHwcHwu822g=+Myy-gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH4_CC=HcngR9gFWqWASB9ZVWV_wo7ocGG21Hm7euyybfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSwzTCaBUnzU806YWUweDw+HUR5ubRSWJaxD15wde_N3Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<A1.40.01345.C69E15F4@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAKOpQSyxVL=MWLM80bpr_oXMcxtDNUhyfat3U9-b77kZADAUEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH46g5+wEsJ4MAQ+rXrXgvTAag+ye7vM2hb+7FFpxFyJvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 16:19:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSx_ZbNjKdpaJKfV5ApRgh42y15jKp5-nj=KE-N-Oez6_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502caeaf2c27504ba5fc2da
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] SVN Account Request: justatest
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--00504502caeaf2c27504ba5fc2da
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hmm yeah that's a good point.  I guess the RFC would be to document what
the procedure is; and, if there's not a procedure, then to establish one
for consistency.  I'm all for meritocracy for OOP project admins but if
there's no established "process" for determining who goes into that inner
circle I just don't think that's healthy IMHO.

Either way, if there is a process for selecting them, somebody else will
need to document it on the wiki because I have no idea what it is or if it
even exists.

--Kris


On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lol well personally I disagree.  I was super-stoked when the RFC process
>> was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it!  Not only
>> does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
>> proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.
>>
>> Of course that's only my opinion.  If other people say they'd like to se=
e
>> that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter under m=
y
>> breath and leave it alone.  ;P
>>
>>
> the RFC process covers how do we introduce changes.
> nothing to change here imo.
> of course if you think that this info would be useful for others, feel
> free to document it in the wiki.
>
> --
> Ferenc Kov=E1cs
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>

--00504502caeaf2c27504ba5fc2da--