Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75872
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender)
References: <84603C6F-F984-4F73-892A-4416391E4769@ajf.me> <FF53F427-6E40-439F-ADCC-A1AD0E808CA4@ajf.me>
 <53CE66D4.2060103@gmail.com> <E2A6CAD6-92BA-447E-A321-E55A0E52B314@ajf.me>
 <76fe76cab9ff261f8ef8950f79fb6740@mail.gmail.com> <53CE8FC6.3070107@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53CE8FC6.3070107@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:00:05 +0300
Message-ID: <5767917446161125020@unknownmsgid>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> On 22 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=95=D7=9C 2014, at 19:25, Rowan Collins <rowan.colli=
ns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Zeev Suraski wrote (on 22/07/2014):
>> I think the way it's laid out right now makes sense.  Let's not try to
>> sweep this under the carpet - we two mutually exclusive options and we
>> need to decide between them.
>
> How is laying out the arguments more clearly "sweeping it under the carpe=
t"?

If I understood you correctly you seem to believe that we should aim
for consensus when it's pretty clear there isn't going to be one.  I
can't see how shuffling the points around under topics will somehow
help us create such consensus.  Knowing many of the people in the two
'camps', I know that's not going to happen.

I also don't think it's going to make it any clearer.  In fact I think
that putting these arguments into topics that go back and forth
arguing for 6 and 7 will actually make it a lot messier.  It's not as
if you can buy into one argument for 7 and then another one for 6 -
voters need to make a choice between the two options.

I think people should read one case, then the other, and see which one
they like better as a whole, as opposed to a debate-style approach
where each topic is discussed separately.

> The *outcomes* may be mutually exclusive, but the *discussion* is about v=
arious issues, and I don't think the current RFC does a good job of summari=
sing those.

If you think there's missing or superfluous content in either cases I
think we'd all appreciate any suggestions you may have.  I don't think
that changing format while keeping the content will change the job the
RFC does at summarizing the issues.

Also, judging by the core turnout a couple of days ago I think it's
clear most people are ready to vote on this.  In about 15 hrs it had
more votes that some other RFCs don't have after a week.

Zeev