Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65309
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH4+0BVUtzk_0WQitbRnee1778WZUXequ9Tn388GU3DKLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEWFMqBhKE-Q=MquMANmWp+p27Dn-X7nA5ocWRDHshEKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8443b1f0eaec6316a3e5791c097d5c49@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+Jfa8xaJ+RYcvkpdG0OS+7mEFfPS1U04adTGj1NTf0jvSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH4+0BVUtzk_0WQitbRnee1778WZUXequ9Tn388GU3DKLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:14:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+p1TcazYtC_=FhkxcAtyc+Wv9HpO6imCUsLLDrXWmojx07=Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, PHP Development <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554d29a003bf404d4616f2d
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Purpose of voting
From: arraypad@gmail.com (Arpad Ray)

--bcaec554d29a003bf404d4616f2d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net
> >wrote:
> > 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... ?)
> >
>
> 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.
>
>
In this particular case, a lot of people felt that the concept itself was
undesirable. Particularly memorable was the crass flaming of Stas.

Also I think the approach of defining specifics while the general concept
was under question, was misguided to say the least. Feedback was ignored or
forewarned because it didn't fit in the narrow cast you provided.

People voting "no" based on the implementation were the least of your
worries.

Arpad

--bcaec554d29a003bf404d4616f2d--