Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77457 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36298 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2014 11:35:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Sep 2014 11:35:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:56483] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 21/01-31799-B7900245 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:35:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A69115405; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:35:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:35:19 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= cc: Leigh , Andrea Faulds , PHP internals In-Reply-To: <1411223823.3023.101.camel@guybrush> Message-ID: References: <8DEFB90E-0F7F-4876-890D-D4AD1C655D87@ajf.me> <1411223823.3023.101.camel@guybrush> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-1368797122-1411385719=:4267" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is it fair that people with no karma can vote on RFCs? From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-1368797122-1411385719=:4267 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Johannes Schl=C3=BCter wrote: > On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 03:16 +0100, Leigh wrote: > >=20 > > I think everyone with the ability to vote should have to communicate=20 > > their reasons behind their yes/no publicly on this mailing list for=20 > > it to be valid. If you cannot describe in your own words why a=20 > > proposal should or should not be accepted, why should your opinion=20 > > be valid? > >=20 > That's one of the reasons why I consider voting as default way wrong.=20 > It might be a way to solve ties if a consensus can't be reached. That's another good point, that I stand behind. I think f.e. the integer=20 semantics RFC was contentious enough to warrant further discussion and=20 see what could make other people to say "yes" as well. The current RFC=20 process does not state anything about reflecting comments on the ML to=20 have to be addressed before the RFC can even be put to vote. And I=20 think, valid (technical) objects should be required to be addressed. > It is unclear what a "no" means. Might be a related to the patch the=20 > design, a misunderstanding or due to a critical issue ... in the end=20 > a vote creates "losers" with little feedback. >=20 > But well, I'm saying this from day one of the voting. Yes. I am in that camp too. cheers, Derick --8323329-1368797122-1411385719=:4267--