Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82756
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
In-Reply-To: <54E118BC.2010009@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:15:23 +0000
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <7C723F41-B7E2-440A-B96B-5BC799638CBE@ajf.me>
References: <82D0FEAC-4B86-4589-A21B-51A9E8795D8A@ajf.me> <54E118BC.2010009@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] I quit.
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hey Rowan,

> On 15 Feb 2015, at 22:07, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> I'm really really sorry to hear this. The energy you've put into the =
project recently has been really appreciated by many people, and I =
really admire your dedication to finding compromises to controversial =
topics. I can see, though, that it takes a lot of time to be that =
actively involved on a voluntary basis, and that a clean break might =
feel necessary to shift your focus. I hope to see your name in future, =
either in a less involved role in PHP, or in some other project.

Thank you.

> On a purely procedural note, though, is there some way the Scalar Type =
Hints RFC can be left in voting, as a vote in principle, while we wait =
for someone to step up and take over the implementation? There are only =
4 days left, and with over 100 votes cast, it seems a shame to say that =
they were all meaningless, while leaving the door open to start all over =
again. I think it will hurt people's faith in the process to cancel now, =
and can't think of a particularly strong reason not to let the vote run =
its course before deciding what to do next.

It might be for the best that we don=E2=80=99t keep it in voting. During =
the voting process, it became apparent that the declare() syntax (with =
all its idiosyncrasies) was a big problem (influencing at least 3 =
people=E2=80=99s votes), so much so that I decided that I=E2=80=99d make =
a follow-up RFC to fix it after voting ended, to avoid having to cancel =
the vote. Now that voting=E2=80=99s cancelled, that could be fixed =
properly if someone revived the RFC.

I think the vote totals still make a statement. The vote may have ended =
4 days early, but it=E2=80=99s only 1 vote short of a 2/3 majority.

I=E2=80=99m not sure, really.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/