Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74318 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98485 invoked from network); 17 May 2014 22:00:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 May 2014 22:00:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.240 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.240 imap2-1.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [198.187.29.240] ([198.187.29.240:60594] helo=imap2-1.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 28/C0-28415-1FBD7735 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 18:00:18 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.200] (unknown [90.203.28.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3138A5A0086; Sat, 17 May 2014 18:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:08 +0100 Cc: Derick Rethans , Zeev Suraski , internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <46e6ebb1de57c25be1bb5eb3bdfab1b5@mail.gmail.com> <57E53747-4985-4273-9911-D09B4616A104@ajf.me> To: Levi Morrison X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Building a better PHP together. From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 17 May 2014, at 22:58, Levi Morrison wrote: > I agree that rallying your cause on list is okay, it just needs to be > appropriate. Let me provide an example of something that I think is > appropriate: >=20 > "I will be voting yes/no on ... because ... and encourage everyone to > vote with this in mind" >=20 > I think the heated and unhelpful debate on the "A call for help > (urgent)" is evidence enough to validate the stance of not asking > members to vote in a particular way. Right, that=92s what I was aiming at. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/