Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65243 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98106 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 13:10:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 13:10:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.219.48 mail-oa0-f48.google.com Received: from [209.85.219.48] ([209.85.219.48:39171] helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D7/79-28517-7D876015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:10:47 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id h2so2673981oag.7 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:10:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-mailer :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=S0jju2IYBj+SI6sFYY5pcpkcZB7aWKCP8docX1H7z50=; b=jbJoIIH1APaJmlaJ/15nARzQl4GWixKeTo5tK0jZ5SJSQI2Prv87OB7QazRk7Kvhp7 /R1h09nPr9M5F617JqHER8IoFAqDCthvGen/4oQ0HERgy370QAGb65LlIlY2D5zKhfsv dVV4ccE+lznTUR0GYOtYGtNcL8Y/70VmtPzdt+GsC3QS6M4XiNuSZdh5fGWgsNLQSkTZ 7+RAiVZMX4Il0PCndvj/L2mtDkFMUpamj6pkAVTjARNfccoJ/qZqHendweh4r4AI0U5c 8dDnICcoWgPBDVPBl1N/zQTo2cAtAX6H7fIAWy5CnzQ6xeR2eTpI1+NhzNSzZjYyGDXy sxRw== X-Received: by 10.60.32.200 with SMTP id l8mr11437706oei.43.1359378644939; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:10:44 -0800 (PST) References: <76a9565b2a095a72063a68f106a6b457@mail.gmail.com> <5ed6711b24349c82b7c17dd450ff7c80@mail.gmail.com> <7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com> <5106690E.6040908@zerocue.com> <0c562257e5e083f708cc7d24dbb1b4aa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQItj407fvbyyHusXdfq7WqB3TBWzwH/50DcAYH7XhQC750pEQD+3ruMAeryfbIBsOMj+AHwhwYSAdVkNg+XKQERgA== Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:10:44 +0200 Message-ID: <203a166562813d62bddeed278566a0b7@mail.gmail.com> To: Pierre Joye Cc: Clint Priest , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkwT1OPM0YV6jMp7EpJXfLia7T8YLN8yu07bu2p26AqEobUxeXGH/i8a84whdJD1GY0MukykjZ7lE1bNJ0FgoJjTgM7/PgBjE6du15Chk9H88pGmTf8gt+pTzkJhNJkJ8Nbv05g Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) > 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 :) Agreed. I'll wait for your proposed improvements to the voting RFC. Zeev