Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77547 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36490 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2014 16:31:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Sep 2014 16:31:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.245 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.245 imap11-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [198.187.29.245] ([198.187.29.245:55688] helo=imap11-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 29/43-20247-950A1245 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:31:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B898800D2; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:31:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap11.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap11.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Se6lgVpvCYud; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.27.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6674B8800EC; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:31:15 +0100 Cc: Stas Malyshev , PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <4D27A10E-6EC6-4806-94DB-1BF1B976CA7D@ajf.me> <600A7E27-7E6F-4ECF-805F-D62814AA3AB2@ajf.me> <54208461.8020906@sugarcrm.com> To: Ferenc Kovacs X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 23 Sep 2014, at 16:57, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > yeah, and when there is like 12 minutes between the last required vote = casted and the vote being casted(almost a day earlier), it is easy to = jump to conclusions. The vote closing soon after the last vote was not a coincidence, but = it=92s the other way round from what you might think. That vote was = deliberately made by them just before it was going to close (they asked = me when I was going to close it), because they didn=92t want it to fail = by one vote. Had I not got that vote I=92d still have closed it when I = did, and it would have failed. > but putting that aside, what do we do now? > Personally I agree that it is a valid concern that some people could = have missed the voting period because of this: We already discussed = recently that even a week is a bit short (anybody can have a week of = vacation etc.) but that is the minimum mandated by the voting rfc, and = seeing how close the vote was, I think it would be a good idea to extend = the voting. > What do you think? >=20 > ps: I would prefer not reverting the change to save some work/history = obfuscation in case if the result stays. If we=92re re-opening things, let=92s just hold the vote again, rather = than extending the existing vote. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/