Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65239
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5106690E.6040908@zerocue.com>
References: <76a9565b2a095a72063a68f106a6b457@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5=_=FP6wRQjyot0qhAZ0+hrhjdARCjNpcvv4Ne8R8KgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5ed6711b24349c82b7c17dd450ff7c80@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU57p+snxR=LK3j4uSKPMvfU99R68gRRqQsna1MNuadojA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<5106690E.6040908@zerocue.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:53:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7-7MNnTo8tywCUvJMERrtU+7J+2Nkf=6RtoBGzF-qe7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi Clint, Zeev,

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2013 5:19 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> I feel that this is what was done in this particular case, not the other
>> way around. That what brought me to bring up that subject here in the first
>> place. This particular RFC was the only RFC where I noticed this weird 'no
>> sooner than' language, and it seemed intentional to me - given the fact it's
>> a very controversial feature opposed by most core devs. If we want to change
>> the default voting period to two weeks, that's fine - but IMHO it should be
>> for future RFCs after it gets approved.
>
>
> Actually, it was not done on purpose but was mimicking what many other RFC
> "vote sections" do, I thought it was the way it was supposed to be done,
> see:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column
>
> If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita and I
> have given up, to the determinant of the community.


This is horribly wrong, totally wrong.

Zeev, for one, was one of them asking to have a 2/3 majority for any
language related RFC. That's what applies to this RFC, and it is, as
of now, accepted. I don't see how the vote is remotely close to a tie.
There is something very bad going on right now. I'd to think how to
solve that as it is the worst thing that can happen to our project,
accepted RFCs being "rejected" because of the pressure.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org