Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65293
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nEWFMqBhKE-Q=MquMANmWp+p27Dn-X7nA5ocWRDHshEKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEWFMqBhKE-Q=MquMANmWp+p27Dn-X7nA5ocWRDHshEKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:41:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4=FC94FKTF2OFx2OgaSjYkQjtkQVTcstJ8Uzehc7Rf_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Purpose of voting
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi,

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

We do not vote on RFC for features/change without patch(es).

However I could imagine a kind of poll to see if a complex feature is
worse the effort to implement it. It can be very frustrated and
demotivating to spend literally days on something that will be
rejected.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org