Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65283
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ed57fd83c51e81bd75facb6e8bdea4f7@mail.gmail.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>
 <CAPg3XxL2+tbSc7ymy6XMmF9UOSUYjBaNCUOwWCsa5ONW11vQNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <510679E0.1050603@zerocue.com> <ed57fd83c51e81bd75facb6e8bdea4f7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:01:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMyk_AbShxzFttnSWfvn=vSkArcWLyjGX=J0j4z5zvAOriEfOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com>, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>, 
	Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04339d18cb96f004d45de874
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
From: linepogl@gmail.com (Lazare Inepologlou)

--f46d04339d18cb96f004d45de874
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2013/1/28 Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpriest@zerocue.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:15 PM
> > To: Peter Cowburn
> > Cc: Zeev Suraski; Pierre Joye; PHP internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
> >
> >
> > On 1/28/2013 6:12 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> > > On 28 January 2013 12:03, Clint Priest <cpriest@zerocue.com> wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > > Then please close the voting.
> > Since there is no "maximum voting period" and 5.5 is not in a feature
> freeze yet,
> > I left the voting open, in case some people decided to read the patch
> and change
> > their minds.  I see no reason to close the vote unless I'm required to
> do so or the
> > game is up.
>
> I think there's an almost-consensus that voting periods need to be well
> defined.  Two reasons:
>
> 1. If you care enough about it you should be able to vote about it within
> one or two weeks.
> 2. Leaving it open ended gives the RFC proposer too much power.  He could
> simply end the vote once it happens to reach the necessary majority.
>
> So I'd say yes, you're required to end it, either immediately or at most
> at the end of the two week boundary.
>
> > asking for this feature (present in every other modern
> > language) for 5+ years.  I spent two years going through the *tedious*
> RFC
> > discussion process, wrote the software, Nikita made it even better to
> have it
> > shot down without even reasonable explanations as to why "from most
> people."
>
> There are two very reasonable explanations, and it's fine you may disagre=
e
> with them:
>
> 1. It makes the language more complex.
> 2. It makes the language more difficult to maintain.
>


This is not accurate. There are people who would like to see a feature
implemented, but voted no because they did not like the proposed
implementation. This is important. A blunt "No" blocks not only the RFC
itself but also all attempts for alternative or improved solutions.

I believe that all proposals should have 3 options: "Yes, all the way",
"Yes in principle, but not this implementation" and "No in principle". This
would leave room for better approaches.




>
> In both cases, the people who opposed it thought that the gain from addin=
g
> it doesn't outweigh these loss in complexity and maintenance overhead.
>
> > Some are resting on the idea that the ROI isn't there just aren't
> listening to the
> > community.
>
> The vast majority of the PHP community is a silent one;  These people
> don't participate here on internals;  They don't attend conferences;  The=
y
> use it - the vast majority of them in a professional manner - and they
> picked it because they like it the way it is, not because of what it need=
s
> to become.  For every person that subscribes to internals, there's a
> thousand (yes, a THOUSAND) people who don't (it's several thousands vs.~5
> million).  In fact, they're not completely silent.  They speak in volumes
> - PHP 5.4 is used in less than 1% of the sites using PHP today, and even
> the relatively revolutionary 5.3 is still a lot less popular than 5.2.
> The new shiny features are not all that interesting for most people.
>
> The community that participates in internals isn't necessarily
> representative of the community at large.
>
> Zeev
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Lazare INEPOLOGLOU
Ing=C3=A9nieur Logiciel

--f46d04339d18cb96f004d45de874--