Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65242 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95404 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 13:03:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 13:03:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.53 mail-la0-f53.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.53] ([209.85.215.53:54494] helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 90/E8-28517-B2776015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:03:39 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fr10so751953lab.26 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:03:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=O7N+FI+3SoR5OR+X76T3xr1capi2feX+Tgq2uhwDEso=; b=iXUC6fw9TVkAIpZe+fKMR1Zw+X+GDr58N5i8IXZP3hJUUOGblYF5sJl0YYJA6YGwm3 9NYHfFg8f1YtMLpDJgQp9I+v3gdrTS2PPovIge2tql48t/XokyeYCCKoX5DmxQIcBCEQ /RQRrYAG6MyevDJhrQs6ayIf0+wiIJEZpVCkSMVJE4Oe+yAXNrDv/ZLh5ogIQQDmVe9/ jU9AaNxm3/s97IborCIS53KUZNMqRnVmzU5EV7Hi7vhSt/+Jb00LluEFq87QwpdvgVkq zBJL8ABrwOXHVpQ6/8zBnA6ryrg4e+eO/rxdnQvwrD3kTbctE0HfLoE7xA/l7Kn28G6W SwYw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.88.7 with SMTP id bc7mr5661103lbb.108.1359378215972; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.2.69 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:03:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <0c562257e5e083f708cc7d24dbb1b4aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <76a9565b2a095a72063a68f106a6b457@mail.gmail.com> <5ed6711b24349c82b7c17dd450ff7c80@mail.gmail.com> <7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com> <5106690E.6040908@zerocue.com> <0c562257e5e083f708cc7d24dbb1b4aa@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:03:35 +0100 Message-ID: To: Zeev Suraski Cc: Clint Priest , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> 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. > > Are you talking about https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2? > > There are presently 33 supporteds, 21 opposers. That's less than 2/3 > (there would have to be 37 supporters vs. 21 opposers for it to be more > than the needed 2/3). On Wednesday evening it was even less than that. I mean more "no matter if it is or not", but the result is not tie anyway, accepted or not. I find the way things are being done right now as a bad thing. There is a time for discussions and argumentations, and there is a time for votes. Coming in with things like that does not give me a good feeling. Even if you have a good point about how we should clarify the voting phase duration. I am not saying that you do that on purpose or not, but this is something we should carefully deal with, and not like we were sitting alone at the Bahnhofstation, if you see what I mean :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye