Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83185
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a25095424ba7a260f9a149a5711afa61@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<a25095424ba7a260f9a149a5711afa61@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:03:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nEC9eCf1J0O_jBX3GdFrmPbf+ekmNRbjA2u9eWZ1F6e7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Zeev,

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:24 PM
>> To: francois@php.net
>> Cc: Lester Caine; internals@lists.php.net
>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations
>> v0.5)
>>
>> Let me quote something that was said:
>>
>> "Ze'ev and Fran=C3=A7ois have not-so-politely asked [Sara] to not put 0.=
4
>> forward
>> since they have something they believe they have consensus on."
>
> Anthony,
>
> Please stop this.  I have been in touch with Sara, yes, but it was
> absolutely and 100% polite, which I'm sure she'll confirm if you ask her.=
  I
> can't speak for Fran=C3=A7ois as I wasn't a part of whatever corresponden=
ce they
> had between them.
> And no, quoting someone else instead of you making that statement and
> doesn't make it any better.

That was a quote directly from Sara in a public chat room. It wasn't
"someone else".

So it seems like there was a failure in communication if you felt that
it was 100% polite, and she described it as "not-so-politely".

> To be clear, the proposal you're pushing as v0.5 is very different from w=
hat
> she had in mind for v0.4, based on the initial discussions on internals.
> She was trying to listen in to issues and come up with substantial change=
s
> to the v0.3 RFC to radically increase the consensus around it.  v0.5, on =
the
> other hand, is, for the most part, v0.3 with opinionated, discussionless
> explanations of why it's absolutely fine to keep as-is.

Correct. v0.5 is very much in line with 0.3. Because many have been
asking for it. Because I truely believe that the discussions that were
happening around 0.4 and the other proposals have been moving further
away from a good consensus rather than towards it.

So I saw what I believe is a good proposal, and moved forward with it,
tweaking the few things that I thought had to be tweaked.

>> We had a proposal that *had* consensus
>> (66%). It was withdrawn.
>
> 66% is not consensus.  It's a form of special majority but by any stretch
> absolutely not consensus in any definition of the word.
> I'm not going to refer to your guesstimates you have about your ability t=
o
> reach consensus with slight modifications to the proposal, but I can say
> that I know there are at least a few people that voted yes, and in light =
of
> the new proposal that's forming up would now vote no, preferring that new
> option.

Then that's great! But let's find that out by voting rather than
guessing, and rather than politicking. Let's let two competing
proposals go head to head.

Anthony