Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60026
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)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAORXhGKsqmry0vU5=i=huD_eLpmRtEas=j3z-ETK86Qqi8fGTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEZPtU52Ayb6fnLSaZdQ+LHk1hEh3X1tJUO3NWUg3befgSAM1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXZ6W7=Pi+SP4b6c510bWbM9hEjq90_s63bBxbc9n9vsoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxAd6sG8BHWn+dUUz4rAdChhUA+HXyJGpeoZ8GmJKRM0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBGSbBAw3XEwzNOxzoNoFAHDQVDFH9Zw7ju5VKNtA12UYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7qjnwQk1kvOYg67tU-p+YSV8za6-k-56JYXiu1xSHHxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBHo0aTCBEM9YRbXs8nQAC5t5CnHEo=nBaGyNVVMfZ03MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F8C577D.4010303@developersdesk.com>
	<CAKOpQSz8eiJmnwWhunsEY_ZFuUYXQjcibZ-gvBe52v1-q3-GUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F8C757C.1020400@developersdesk.com>
	<CAF+90c8nLnViURirnmrPY78rfrkbQQmf+JnZAevJYDjnp5G0aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSz_LU1H8MopOJuT1TJRo_W8yUTPOMuA311m=iDL6hr4SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGJZ+FguTPXJ3hSz_Tn_xOHHVc3cpfUjhLVdfXHyrSP2Eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+p1TcazLsxtV7cjeG6TQv_tC=2D2cTvBcpmHp-Bh_HjsXu_Xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAORXhGKsqmry0vU5=i=huD_eLpmRtEas=j3z-ETK86Qqi8fGTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:15:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSz-6rnZSDgFVwuSGL3XAp+ngoaVX87WcLZS1uZLiuH+Gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d625742ff24b04bdd32a22
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Go for votes for the open tag-less PHP files
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--0016e6d625742ff24b04bdd32a22
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Tom Boutell <tom@punkave.com> wrote:

> Such a vote would make sense if it were clearly expressed that the
> final RFC would also be subject to a binding vote, so there is no risk
> of being forced to accept an implementation whose particular details
> are unacceptable to you.
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Arpad Ray <arraypad@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please excuse me for butting in without immediate context. I'd just like
> to
> > support the idea of a vote on this concept without getting into
> specifics.
> >
> > If the vote is positive then we can argue the various merits of the
> > competing RFCs knowing that we at least agree in general. On the other
> hand
> > if the vote is negative, we can save a significant amount of time and
> > effort, and can concentrate on more plausible subjects.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Arpad
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Boutell
> P'unk Avenue
> 215 755 1330
> punkave.com
> window.punkave.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Problem is, the RFC voting process currently does not allow for this.  You
could take an informal vote, but I honestly don't see much value in that
given that we've already invested ourselves in this.

Any opinions on my idea of creating an RFC to expand the voting
procedures?  I'd be more than happy to draft one, but only if it's
something people would actually be interested in.  So far, the lack of
response suggests to me that there is no interest in that, in which case we
should accept the voting process as-is and vote on each RFC as a whole
after the prescribed 2-week minimum discussion period.

--Kris

--0016e6d625742ff24b04bdd32a22--