Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75816
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALJZF3ivpM6UFjTvAMnL6gc_1yCm5+TNBkyf9uAB7YJWjTOh1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me>
	<FF53F427-6E40-439F-ADCC-A1AD0E808CA4@ajf.me>
	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1407202212360.4247@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<CAF+90c_bswMjh5J_mJ2Jj3b2WDr5eYWcEAa7s-nrjrqkDsyW4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<D715AD8F-ADEF-4ED3-88F6-27F73EAF13F6@ajf.me>
	<CALJZF3ivpM6UFjTvAMnL6gc_1yCm5+TNBkyf9uAB7YJWjTOh1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:58:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzOGsTNLJMB2oy7XrsWN7B1zokLgenL8GjDgKBTL_Jjjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015371cc6ba9ca04fec1eb9d
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--089e015371cc6ba9ca04fec1eb9d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net> wrote:

> On 20 Jul 2014 23:32, "Andrea Faulds" <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:28, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > After the vote has been started the RFC was edited by Zeev in order t=
o
> strengthen the case for PHP 7. There is nothing wrong with that, adding
> additional arguments to an RFC is perfectly fine by me.
> > >
> > > However at the same time a number of paragraphs were removed that wer=
e
> arguing for PHP 6, at least in part. The only thing that was left in "The
> case for PHP 6" was a single paragraph, of which half was really just an
> explanation of the general situation.
> > >
> > > Effectively the edits made the RFC text heavily biased. It's okay to
> edit an RFC to add arguments for your side, but I find it discourteous an=
d
> disingenuous to remove arguments from the opposing side at the same time.
> > >
> > > As such I can understand Andrea's decision to close this vote until
> tempers had time to cool down and both sides had a chance to be fairly
> represented.
> >
> > It also wasn=E2=80=99t really fair of me to start a vote when there was=
n=E2=80=99t really
> a case for 7, now that I think about it. I suppose that makes my later
> decision hypocritical, but it does mean we=E2=80=99re in a better place n=
ow when we
> have a second vote, as we have two cases.
>
> To sum it up:
>
> 6 would be the logical number for the next major version, that's just a
> fact.
> I would go with it. But I and probably most others who would go with 6
> wouldn't really be hurt if we went with 7.
>
> On the other hand there would be quite some people hurt if we went with 6=
.
> So, maybe it's just me,  but there seems to only be a "case" for 7.
>
> Let's think about the people, not only numbers and facts. We often forget
> about that when "just" answering mails.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>

Andrea and Zeev,

If it's not too much trouble, could you both keep us updated on this thread
with regard to your progress (or lack thereof) in getting the RFC to a
state that both of you are in agreement on?  I think part of the problem
last time was that the discussion fizzled, people forgot about it and moved
on to other things, then suddenly it sprang back up to a vote.  I know that
added to the initial confusion on my part, at least.

So even if you've made no progress, please take a moment at least once a
week or so to update this thread with your status.  It's kinda an
accountability booster, as well.  And Andrea, though according to the
bylaws you can start the vote whenever you want, please do me a favor and
refrain from doing so until Zeev says his part is ready.  We can always put
pressure on him and ultimately find someone else to do it if he takes *too*
long, but as he pointed out and I think rightly so, there's no urgency at
the moment so we can afford a little bit of foot-dragging if need be.

Oh and please feel free to tell me to butt-out at any time.  =3D)

--Kris

--089e015371cc6ba9ca04fec1eb9d--