Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81331
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <54C92683.6020305@php.net>
References: <54C8D36E.7010803@php.net>
	<CAFMT4NpjFSycCVrSUfBBgfJEJv=4Yw8cpmQ-45JWf=75ptr8Lg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMT4NqUU21HGuOf1qZiHP8MvzG4q=o8G99UN5ushLZLh3ydtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C92683.6020305@php.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:03:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NpQynam9+9i4jtsWjhMMk72+nfxiT2x=GkL1sc07dov_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d0d16e81a3b050dbbde73
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

--001a113d0d16e81a3b050dbbde73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net> wrote:

> On 28/01/15 18:58, Levi Morrison wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net
> > <mailto:levim@php.net>> wrote:
> >
> >         Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed
> on
> >         August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether to add
> >         pecl_http to the core. The vote will be open until about 12:00
> >         UTC on
> >         Friday, February 6th.
> >
> >         https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote
> >
> >
> >     I wish you had pinged the list before opening the vote. I know there
> >     were a few people who wanted to make comments but have just been
> >     very busy. For example, I have been dealing with the return types
> >     RFC which has soaked up all of the time I have for working on PHP
> >     projects.
> >
> >     Some feedback: I feel the RFC is not clear about the advantages and
> >     disadvantages of including this package. Mostly, the RFC is "hey I
> >     have this package can we include it in core?" I feel like it's
> >     fairly incomplete as to *why* we should include it. There is a fair
> >     amount of work done in user-land for these types of utilities, and I
> >     think without a more balanced discussion we'd be giving this
> >     extension a distinct advantage.
> >
> >     If we allow it to remain in voting phase despite these issues, I
> >     have to vote no simply because I don't feel like there is enough
> >     information presented in the RFC for anyone except current pecl_http
> >     users to make a good decision; that's hardly a good situation for
> >     the language as a whole.
> >
> >
> > Oh, one more item: has anyone had time to review the pieces and how they
> > all interact, as well as reviewing the quality of each component? I
> > should hardly think in the time given this has been done. I'm not saying
> > this extension is bad; I am saying that I don't think there's been time
> > for anyone to properly evaluate whether it is or not.
>
> Well, there's been hardly any activity on the RFC for over five months,
> if one didn't have the chance for review in this time frame then the
> topic is probably not interesting enough for her.
>
> But I already guessed, that there wouldn't be a real discussion until I
> slapped the label VOTE on this RFC.
>

I always send an email to the list before putting something to vote to
gather more feedback. It usually solicits one or two more points of
discussion. This is not technically a requirement, but if it has has no
activity for 5 months what are the chances that it is on my mind? (Hint:
exactly zero)

As an RFC author if you want people to think about your RFC and discuss it
then on occasion you need to bring it up now and again.

--001a113d0d16e81a3b050dbbde73--