Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76456
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVrM6=TPVXbfSnV+jP=Lmiie83-fx6JdJcxENhLWbiZa6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVqd6m5-Dmhff0OiSFZxRNVBX8AvCQQmVYnDt7+gOJ-xug@mail.gmail.com>
	<BEDB9A15-DBC6-4C7F-BEA2-31779534EFA1@ajf.me>
	<CAESVnVrM6=TPVXbfSnV+jP=Lmiie83-fx6JdJcxENhLWbiZa6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:51:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSxGZfKteQw0FxnOcnTtRpbN7nC4kmM_ZoEODYGELD=Pig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011847a2016fee050075ad93
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Mutliple defaults in switch statements
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--089e011847a2016fee050075ad93
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> > On 12 Aug 2014, at 17:53, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
> >> Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
> >
> > I=E2=80=99m all for this, but the *minimum* discussion period is *two* =
weeks.
> >
> The two-week period is advisory


I don't believe that is correct.  Here's the actual wording:

"There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required."

The "is required" at the end suggests to me that this is more than merely a
suggestion.


> and we don't need to get hung up on
> process for the sake of process.


That's not what it is.  The minimum discussion period is there so that
everyone can take the time to evaluate a proposal *and* hear any dissenting
views that may emerge during this process before voting.  When something
gets fast-tracked like this, there could very well be someone with a
compelling argument against it who simply hasn't seen this RFC yet.  I
agree that's doubtful in this case, but the idea of just arbitrarily
deciding not to follow the rules sets a dangerous precedent, in my view.


> There's been no meaningful
> discussion in the past week because nobody thinks this is remotely a
> bad idea.


See above.


> Hell, some have questioned why this was put into an RFC in
> the first place. (It's arguably a bug, since the existing behavior
> could never have been described as right or intentional).
>
> If you're so worried about violating RFC process, I can revoke it
> entirely and just commit it without voting, and I'd be completely in
> the right.


I can't comment on that as it's well outside my purview.  What I can say is
that, if you're going to choose to use the RFC process as you did, then you
should follow that process and respect its guidelines.  I'd rather you
scrap the RFC entirely than set a precedent that people can just
arbitrarily decide that the rules don't apply to them.  I'm concerned about
the next person who posts an RFC and cites your actions as justification
for not following the posted guidelines.

Or, we can apply a reasonable amount of process without
> getting hung up on seven days worth of... no discussion whatsoever.
>

I think you're missing the point.  Please see my concerns above.


>
> -Sara
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--089e011847a2016fee050075ad93--