Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83260
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <04cc01d04cb2$e25511e0$a6ff35a0$@php.net>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADR=R-iBDWCAeaRh53txfKvvL4ccKA9Fr8Bg68wt0NEHkJefbQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nEcOkFctzy0nYra2WSTKAHZ8UKB_r1mqmsGojZxAkR5pQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<04c701d04c99$ab0da5d0$0128f170$@php.net>
	<CALwr1GnK6c0hmCyYBK4zSJiBVu6HTMORnnt2+J=_A-n5VMe=2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<04cc01d04cb2$e25511e0$a6ff35a0$@php.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:50:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7TZz-kB=ega+uDv5Ewo=8BvmnneA1QWU0xS+nu3Q9wwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: francois@php.net
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>, 
	Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
	Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, PHP Internals <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: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net>=
 wrote:
>> De : P=C3=A1draic Brady [mailto:padraic.brady@gmail.com]
>>
>> As I understand it, Andrea left her RFC free to be reused, reopened
>> and derived without any specific limitation. It would therefore appear
>> that it would be possible for there to be 100 derived RFCs all owned
>> by different people, i.e. nobody has an exclusive right to either the
>> RFC text or the concept of scalar typehints insofar as I understand
>> it.
>
> You're right. The process of taking over an RFC in this case is not defin=
ed. Even if Andrea explicitly authorized anyone to derive anything from her=
 work, I thought it was lack of respect for her work to take control and sw=
itch to another direction. That's why, while I'm not totally in sync with A=
nthony's proposal, I think he is acting the right way regarding Andrea's wo=
rk.

I think so too and it is not the 1st time.

> And yes, apparently, you could have 100 RFCs derived from the same one an=
d published by different people. I also guessed it was forbidden, at least =
by common sense, but it is possible.
>
> I would happily support more rules for such cases.

Such as? Competition is good and my past experiences is that in cases
like this one, it is nearly an utopia to think that the other party
will actually try to reach your needs. So the only way to actually get
a RFC representing what you want to do is to have a competitive one.

In the other hand, I had other cases where the counter part happily
added options and co to have an objective RFC.