Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65308
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.210.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACwt+Jfa8xaJ+RYcvkpdG0OS+7mEFfPS1U04adTGj1NTf0jvSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEWFMqBhKE-Q=MquMANmWp+p27Dn-X7nA5ocWRDHshEKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8443b1f0eaec6316a3e5791c097d5c49@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+Jfa8xaJ+RYcvkpdG0OS+7mEFfPS1U04adTGj1NTf0jvSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:24:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH4+0BVUtzk_0WQitbRnee1778WZUXequ9Tn388GU3DKLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Development <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9341071b97c1f04d460be8c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Purpose of voting
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--14dae9341071b97c1f04d460be8c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>w=
rote:

> 2013/1/28 Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>:
> >> What should we be voting on when voting on an RFC: on the RFC proposed
> >> feature, or on the patch itself?
> >
> > I think it should be exclusively on the concept.  We never vote about
> code
> > changes anywhere - including when we refactor existing parts.  Why woul=
d
> > we vote about the implementation here?
>
> Just to +1 Zeev's opinion here.
> It's perfectly valid to accept an RFC and comment on the
> implementation on what should be improved or what sucks in it.
>
> If one is voting "no" mostly because of the implementation, then I
> would say that there is a lack of information in the voting process
> when saying "no". (No why... ?)
>
> Side node: whatever the formal "process" we will use we will always
> have to be flexible enough to listen to each other and not falling
> into bureaucracy too much.
>
> Patrick
>

voting no based on the implementation would be that bad if the more voters
could participate in the discussion phase, as that is where those problems
should be laid out and addressed.
as Client also said, knowing why a person voted no is much easier to bear
for the author even if he doesn't agree with those.


--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--14dae9341071b97c1f04d460be8c--