Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77361
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8DEFB90E-0F7F-4876-890D-D4AD1C655D87@ajf.me>
References: <8DEFB90E-0F7F-4876-890D-D4AD1C655D87@ajf.me>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 03:16:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPwsocFxXsBLvOOL1d5tACnWw8hsy_gwE9M-4OCzO1b427zHOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is it fair that people with no karma can vote on RFCs?
From: leight@gmail.com (Leigh)

On 20 September 2014 02:29, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Perhaps I=E2=80=99m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if=
 it is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to t=
he documentation, extensions, php-src or anything else, to have the ability=
 to vote on RFCs?
>
> I=E2=80=99d never suggest people without internals karma can=E2=80=99t vo=
te. I think doc and peck contributors are as valued as any other contributo=
rs. However, people with no karma whatsoever (a blank people.php.net page) =
voting irks me.
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>

Hey Andrea,

I think you know my personal opinion here. I want the people who are
in a position to control the state of the language to be people who
actively contribute to the language.

Anyone who actively works towards a better PHP (regardless of whether
their proposals are accepted or rejected) should be able to have an
opinion on what is accepted or not.

People who contribute one  translation a year, a bug report once, a
pecl extension 10 years ago and _nothing_ since then,... I don't
understand why these people get to vote on the future of the language
that the rest of us "investors" use every day.

I think everyone with the ability to vote should have to communicate
their reasons behind their yes/no publicly on this mailing list for it
to be valid. If you cannot describe in your own words why a proposal
should or should not be accepted, why should your opinion be valid?

Interest in the language should be recent and relevant. It's difficult
to police "legacy contributors", but if they are not interested enough
to type a few lines..... the answer is clear.

Say no to non-contributors.

Cheers,

Leigh.