Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74312 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87407 invoked from network); 17 May 2014 20:49:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 May 2014 20:49:37 -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 108.166.43.91 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.91 smtp91.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.91] ([108.166.43.91:33607] helo=smtp91.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D1/67-53190-F5BC7735 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 16:49:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 368F1140A40; Sat, 17 May 2014 16:49:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp4.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id C6E30140A3E; Sat, 17 May 2014 16:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5377CB5C.3000808@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 13:49:32 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Faulds , Zeev Suraski CC: PHP internals References: <4818449979808f1f4d0fcdc1409d9e04@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to increase the required majority for all RFCs From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Also, I am unconvinced that just because the people who maintain Zend > (say) want something, that they are necessarily right. Nobody is "necessarily right". If we could find a person who is always right, we wouldn't need a vote - we'd just ask him (or her) and do as he (or her) says. Instead, we have to try and find the right thing knowing that everybody could be wrong, both individually and collectively. And here we have a conundrum - who is likely to be right and wrong on the matters dealing with deep engine implementation and requiring deep expertise to get them right - people actually working with it or people that, without diminishing their respective abilities and capabilities, do not? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227