Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76124
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain jonstirling.co.uk from 209.85.217.175 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <67df3067bba9b3a36b6fb3aad2268cdf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABBJUpdLqn_gfUbBUAd=WzzEbBCvuU9ZziNgbNSCbVPRrGSAzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7vLV0To4VGj4HSoTG6wxTgBY+R6BJrtHjCjcDR3oCrRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<942ad7fad321579d0a2dc97511f01053@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABFWAErq0gFk8=iL3C2Owggfd60ZZBbzyXmMu8JnqZ6n4UBC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<67df3067bba9b3a36b6fb3aad2268cdf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:49:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPgKKxU+9TbfsN9cMNDBjDB+eZzGHFAkZ-ePJPVa6Q7Bkx6a2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: JoshyPHP <phpwnd@gmail.com>, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c77615a31704ff05ad46
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG "document lacking" argument
From: phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk (Jonny Stirling)

--089e0158c77615a31704ff05ad46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The circumstances that surround the development of NG are very much in the
past now. Secret or not, it's done and we now have NG. This is a good
thing=E2=84=A2 and
is not the subject of the debate nor a need for people to be apologising
for their hard work.

Ignoring the "having a go" items that appear to be getting flung around at
the moment, can we perhaps move forward.

There has been a request for more documentation. I see nothing wrong with
this request, and there is nothing blocking about it. It is up to the RFC
OP to decide whether it goes to vote, and the current idea is that the vote
will begin in 2 weeks (- a few days) as per the voting RFC from what I've
read. Perfect, that's the way it should be. There are now ~2 weeks for the
NG devs to put some time into actioning any requests *should they wish*,
it's not a requirement. People are of course able to lobby for their
preferred option and perhaps will if they feel strongly one way or another,
but lets try and keep it professional(ish)?

Whether or not requests for more information / whatever get answered
(fully, partially or not at all) is up to the NG devs but action / inaction
may have an impact on voting (as it should). We should assume that people
voting will use their best judgement based on the available / lack of
information.

So, requesting things is not a blocker, providing requested items is
optionally actionable by the relevant people to a degree they deem
appropriate, and people will vote accordingly.

Hurrah!

Zeev, with respect to your last point, I responded asking for comment re
the NG branch on the other thread. A response one way or another may help
(though may not) confirming voting options.

2 cents.

Cheers.
Jonny.

--089e0158c77615a31704ff05ad46--