Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72238 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34849 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2014 06:10:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Feb 2014 06:10:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.49 mail-qa0-f49.google.com Received: from [209.85.216.49] ([209.85.216.49:54080] helo=mail-qa0-f49.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C6/10-22810-4E5D1F25 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:10:44 -0500 Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w8so13701705qac.22 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:10:41 -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=N/CcCkZVHKK5tpsXnOUCZE+DXF7Bxb/N1fJPUL586HQ=; b=AFCy1C9LwKcRKwYyClHXWh6N6RZLEiM1SNvExt1vxhTbNTgZt5JgWE1/2+V76TkdAg LgZF6qyxqQLvk6IlE3DvGgB4XxFVVqHQN2w71ydcZGUGD2TPcePC1+DVNAcuQWjYvjD5 pviaNGvQ1oLzSmDd3rmPwO5wXMdzkoJmfNS9z0+T5OGK5OIjGlQZmIFOVQVuiLrhLzjv rf1ekWD0I3GlHLhvMnRYgzSnWOyVhnuhc9b8gG0qF+vzNh/nh/GNiMyEaESK5hlP5QXV 2BITQpWxbBL96acleIzPIKFMiJ5TdMJ/CAzQE1q9O7DPmlIxcLBVmtBX+crAfziuxsNN ijgw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.104.8 with SMTP id m8mr74002458qao.87.1391580641508; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:10:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.18.129 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 22:10:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.18.129 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 22:10:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52F18A4F.9030800@ajf.me> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:10:41 +0100 Message-ID: To: Yasuo Ohgaki Cc: PHP internals , Andrea Faulds , Levi Morrison Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132ec00d0408e04f1a29d0b Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFCs: length of voting process. From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) --001a1132ec00d0408e04f1a29d0b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Feb 5, 2014 3:16 AM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote: > > Hi Levi, > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Levi Morrison wrote: > > > > > > > I don't find any problem with a week being the voting period. You already > > > have, at the very least, 2 weeks prior to any vote to discuss the RFC. > > > > > > > Except its fairly often that people change the RFC within this window so > > when it goes to vote you have to review stuff. And if you are busy that > > week then... well, you miss the vote. > > > This is because people tends to read RFC when voting. > To address this issue, close vote, discuss, reopen vote, is the > way to go. Reopened vote should be a week or more. Minimum > 2 weeks seems too much to me. But then it is debatable, depending on the change, including the implementation. I think it is fair to have 2 weeks again to discuss and test the changes. Cheers, Pierre --001a1132ec00d0408e04f1a29d0b--