Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65285
Return-Path: <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 71639 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 19:15:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 19:15:03 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ircmaxell@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ircmaxell@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ircmaxell@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.171 mail-vc0-f171.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.220.171] ([209.85.220.171:62288] helo=mail-vc0-f171.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id D8/18-28517-63EC6015 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:15:02 -0500
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p1so2071494vcq.16
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:14:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=KLii68TNilon35e5ODtvg8SrVUT00oVyQqcI7tnciZQ=;
        b=WDbZVs8SCAW54PhOFIGlCShzKgxbTfJ8XjnxKoFX46/cJgzJyd+LaKrepAdTboJp6F
         DxDO4xvUvrl9HIhC51mYWRsbqn/0c4aLpv/4LRxesactLsqx9U1MLoFuVJzT+Uc/G+OA
         WV/UtPtrNCnPcwrYL/QDYzuibuxpfmpKjKeVm86TN7cC/WKLh4Bwx+oJPqpkQj+7ew3Q
         sA53UTX0mdCEP+FqOOUBo5vCtIz0g5BpvVulvEjie8PpFAknQmcoVoJme3wQ4IvtvznO
         GH2qwmmmDlthED5W6qqGYfulq1Q8HBGUccqeWe7t14bUzlH3oyxAjmvbm1a67B60noIf
         3OOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.179.136 with SMTP id dg8mr13846756vdc.81.1359400499048;
 Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:14:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.56.137 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:14:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nEWFMqBhKE-Q=MquMANmWp+p27Dn-X7nA5ocWRDHshEKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5014c15da71d604d45e17f6
Subject: Purpose of voting
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--bcaec5014c15da71d604d45e17f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hey all,

After reading the Voting Periods email thread, I'm left wondering a simple
question (which has a difficult answer):

What should we be voting on when voting on an RFC: on the RFC proposed
feature, or on the patch itself?

I've always approached it as we're voting for the concept (and details)
provided in the RFC. But it appears that other people have been voting on
the specifics of the attached patch (so theoretically an RFC could be
rejected entirely because some people don't like part of the implementation
in C, but are fine with the PHP details).

I'll leave out my opinion (and justification) for now, I'm curious what you
all think...

Thoughts?

Anthony

--bcaec5014c15da71d604d45e17f6--