Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81332
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C94156.9050200@php.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:06:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <54C8D36E.7010803@php.net>	<CAFMT4NpjFSycCVrSUfBBgfJEJv=4Yw8cpmQ-45JWf=75ptr8Lg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFMT4NqUU21HGuOf1qZiHP8MvzG4q=o8G99UN5ushLZLh3ydtg@mail.gmail.com>	<54C92683.6020305@php.net> <CAFMT4NpQynam9+9i4jtsWjhMMk72+nfxiT2x=GkL1sc07dov_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NpQynam9+9i4jtsWjhMMk72+nfxiT2x=GkL1sc07dov_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

On 28/01/15 21:03, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net
> <mailto: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>
>     > <mailto: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.

Yep, I re-started discussion on January 22nd. Gathered the same
participants than the first discussion round.

-- 
Regards,
Mike