Newsgroups: php.internals,php.webmaster
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71034 php.webmaster:18062
Return-Path: <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 21790 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2014 00:56:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jan 2014 00:56:04 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=kris.craig@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=kris.craig@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: kris.craig@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.219.49 mail-oa0-f49.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.219.49] ([209.85.219.49:56539] helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id FE/80-18828-3A05BC25 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:56:04 -0500
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id i4so19720841oah.36
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:55:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=zw6VNf40msEZ0kdkje/CvVCfdJSFhDOlTFNFZ95TMx8=;
        b=B7Jb2FzTjQSToX8oZFX/0roVQZpLYD9Gyioq80z1KUYA47CNJVWdL6zcgSFB++WJau
         /gYjUmp+9Bk8OybnnOj0P9GRS2XNitSrIYRVkvVwHfgTWophtZxqZvysSkKbHc5nqa93
         y+/eGI5WkW0lJL4QBR9PjMFTEj3Y3miaI7a7VrVijiHIgbQkqZJEHoLML/nCSCGeMSSD
         0L5AymEmNUx7Syr1MDUh4E6XA90D+tI+jaou484pWxGSkWzdJfrYss4BlqNzqcoefVbk
         Rlh5XDaE5N/wVi+jASBxRrRyZlMvR46ieFfiBRKYg6/U3CF4lG0LSeaFYtJpnl0m/y99
         HWQw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.133.203 with SMTP id pe11mr37421oeb.84.1389056159502;
 Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:55:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.221.170 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:55:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52CB4B1C.70507@ajf.me>
References: <CAF+90c9VeZ8Y1UMy1aQAoDjRr5nmx6stdqESiC1uV8wAk_e=1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7ywc2vg3Dj2Jrqq7GdEDZKOUcew-vHR6yDLnTFqnqeGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg3XxJ7KcaWE3j1g5GLtAuQuVFqaMdrzOzJOnvyPZJw-_d6gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52CAFCE2.8060608@sugarcrm.com>
	<CADNQb0XdRAbvqnYbZ2C3vRxyM=WjwLw=-_CbO2xyCg6NKj-6gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52CB4B1C.70507@ajf.me>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:55:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSxTK7+OhJEe6EDcFyCOopjMrTH0LbzYigAZTRynf6FvXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	Peter Cowburn <salathe@php.net>, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	php-webmaster <php-webmaster@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b41baeaf5da3604ef56d6a5
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-WEBMASTER] Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC votes no longer visible
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--047d7b41baeaf5da3604ef56d6a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
>
> On 06/01/14 19:26, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>
>> - The author of the RFC can no longer bribe and "convince" individual
>> person to change his/hers vote
>>
>
> I'm unconvinced "bribery" exists. What I do know exists is that people who
> make RFCs will contact people who voted No to try and see how they can
> improve the RFC to be more to their liking. I can't see how this could be a
> bad thing.
>
>
Agreed.  I believe it was completely inappropriate for this change to have
been made unilaterally without a vote or even discussion.  To suggest that
we should now discuss whether to revert it would be like implementing a new
feature without any discussion then proposing an RFC to remove it.

Please revert the change immediately.  We can then discuss the merits of it
and vote on it as an RFC.  If you have the better argument, then it will
pass.  But making such a drastic change that affects the entire voting
process unilaterally would set a precedent that completely undermines the
whole point of having a voting process in the first place.

--Kris

--047d7b41baeaf5da3604ef56d6a5--