Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66538
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5f2df0dd71a78d08dd11ced5f2b0a72a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <435a322ccb14090d3bcf6bf8a110396d@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU56QE=uMFcE+xe2vSzwCH_9KGFs33bJCySWpsx6Ed7k3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpds9XnOZC9gfDs8OHmoe6hTQosqe8qzmTtTX4Xg-JsT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8944597477930141639@unknownmsgid>
	<CAEZPtU75+HZMcP+HUAEFGQ3R99g5_PsWJMd4OUkq+__s2CVc9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a0793107537dceb9cc67c616294ce76@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU73==PG7QXT61LRZ0TNFUmtN1B5kBpXP1Cjvg2sZighGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5132FE98.5050201@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU668P3YTn9g8CZbavb0nz-ui6NDKP0pCEb-7zZE+Q8-VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<513316A1.1050109@lerdorf.com>
	<CAF+90c8G-dQHVgwbKL16kJmHjbJLMXai6bNS7TZjXT1OT+QBAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5WPhWh_yhcnFvTFdgPKsSez2DikEqrC2qthwHGUUbhzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5138C0FD.1010208@lerdorf.com>
	<CAAyV7nFLoC2nL+Usocwm6f-bTPP24Q7OU6R1gd7pM8qSGLLVTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7faa70ac4ef59d9f7748b17de1d6892d@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nHO7EcxMKaBSuxHuehC7p6a4NOE58zGHkFOvkfvjV4JJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5f2df0dd71a78d08dd11ced5f2b0a72a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:25:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5D13cwxEO0Qd89Nc0_T=mgH+QVaqOSWNbNkEH5ytSSsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> 94% of the votes voted in favor of integrating O+ into PHP, which is well
> above 2/3, it=92s almost 3/3.


44 for 5.5 + delay

22 for no delay (aka 5.6)

4 for not at all in the current sate

Sorry but don't use numbers badly to cover your goals.

> The only open question was about timeline.

It is the main question, not the last open (there are many).

> And no matter how we twist it, whether it happens now or in a year has
> ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with whether or not it=92s a language change.  I=
n
> other words, if I phrased the RFC differently, and only asked who=92s in
> favor vs. who=92s against =96 it would get a 94% vote in favor,



> easily blowing
> past both the 51% barrier as well as the 67% barrier.  A 2nd RFC, asking
> people to vote about the timeline =96 would have gotten 44 vs 22, which
> happens to be 2/3, but clearly, would not have required more than 51% sin=
ce
> it=92s a timeline question, not a language change question.

It is clearly not as clear as you think.

> I=92m afraid that=92s as far as I=92m willing to play this game of bureau=
cracy.
> The voting RFC wasn=92t designed to turn PHP into The House, or a courtro=
om.
> There=92s absolutely NO WAY we can reach consensus, and there=92s no way =
the
> overwhelming majority would agree to paralysis imposed by a tiny minority=
.
> Let=92s put it to rest, we all have better things to do with our time.

Yes, but what should be put on rest is not the RFCs process, which
work out of the box for 99.99% but the way you habdle it and the total
lack of respect for the different opinions raised here or on other
lists. That'd to end at some point.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye