Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71028 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 540 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2014 18:58:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2014 18:58:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.123 smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.123] ([67.192.241.123:46158] helo=smtp123.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D3/E7-62543-6ECFAC25 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 13:58:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AF1657812F; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:58:43 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp2.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id E0CFD7815B; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:58:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52CAFCE2.8060608@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:58:42 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Cowburn , Pierre Joye CC: Nikita Popov , PHP internals , php-webmaster References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC votes no longer visible From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I’d rather see discussion on the subject than an immediate revert; not that > I’m against reverting in any way. Let’s make the changes, if we do decide > to make any, be beneficial. I don't think this is how it should work. This is a pretty big change in voting process, it should be discussed *first*, and only then merged, if it's agreeable. Going back to the old "first merge, then maybe discuss if enough people protest" is not a good development. It's not the PHP source code but the community environment now but it doesn't differ - we should still do it the right way. I don't see this change as anything urgent or necessary to be put in immediately, and there are obvious objections from many people - myself included, btw. So let's please first back off the controversial change and then discuss it. > It had been around for such a long time that I figure any complaints would > have been raised and addressed between the initial PR [1] and now. Funny Nobody looked at this PR or knew it is going to be merged. That's why we have a process of announcing things and initiating discussion - because most people don't regularly review all pulls that are pending in all repos. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227