Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65282 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 67146 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 19:01:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 19:01:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.183 smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.183] ([67.192.241.183:35778] helo=smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BE/17-28517-E0BC6015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:01:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DFBB685ED; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:01:31 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp8.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 7EA5585EE; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:01:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5106CB0B.3050403@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:01:31 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Clint Priest , Zeev Suraski , PHP internals References: <76a9565b2a095a72063a68f106a6b457@mail.gmail.com> <5ed6711b24349c82b7c17dd450ff7c80@mail.gmail.com> <7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com> <5106690E.6040908@zerocue.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 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. I'm sorry, I am seeing 34/21 result. It's 61% for, 39% against - which means, it falls short of 2/3 majority. How is it "as of now, accepted"? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227