Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84875
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6e268626bc6b84a3886f39442c827bb6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP63B4758D2D902644C6BB24E2050@phx.gbl>
	<d29a6faab8dd07ce62f6df153c400b03@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALwr1GnMyQrJno24k+hC5WobE29VsQJqcirBYm5XucjW2dxWQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6e268626bc6b84a3886f39442c827bb6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 15:11:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nEOpN74zNbc9maU9z-LUcOGN4xyAYi2_EGvv04brezdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Zeev,

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: P=C3=A1draic Brady [mailto:padraic.brady@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
>>
>> On 15 March 2015 at 16:55, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> > Bob,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the update.  This time, though, although I completely
>> > respect your decision not to put your RFC into a vote unless the Dual
>> > STH mode fails, I'd like to either (with your permission) take over
>> > the RFC or propose my own copy and move it to voting as soon as
>> > allowed.  This, under a commitment that if I see that Basic STH is
>> > failing to garner a clear majority, I'll retract it and move to
>> > support the Dual STH RFC instead for the sake of unity.
>>
>> No one individual has the right to break the existing rules around votin=
g.
>> There has been more than sufficient time to date to rewrite the voting
>> rules,
>> debate voting rights, extend PHP7's deadline, or propose the basic RFC s=
o
>> described. A vote in contravention of the voting rules at the last
>> possible
>> minute cannot, by definition, be recognised at this time. I wouldn't eve=
n
>> vote
>> since it might lend it an air of ill deserved legitimacy, forgetting for=
 a
>> moment whether a few PEAR contributions make me any more deserving of
>> a vote than others.
>
> No rule is being broken.
>
> The PHP 7 timeline RFC (wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline) states the followi=
ng:
> Line up any remaining RFCs that target PHP 7.0.   |     Now - Mar 15 (4+
> additional months)
>
> As Bob pointed out, what 'Line up' means - whether it means vote ends, vo=
te
> begins, or discussion begins - is completely open to interpretation.  I
> don't remember what I meant when I wrote it, but arguably, 'line up' is a
> lot closer to 'start discussing' than 'finish voting', and as is typicall=
y
> the case when something is unclear, the most lax interpretation is
> acceptable.

By your own words: http://marc.info/?l=3Dphp-internals&m=3D142451267910615&=
w=3D2

> Following Adam's analysis of the timeline, taking the more 'strict' (no p=
un intended!) interpretation of the timeline RFC, we still have until tomor=
row to start the discussion and still target it for 7.0, no?  Given the imp=
ortance of this topic, I'd go for the more lax interpretation that allows f=
or votes to begin by March 15, giving us all a bit more time to discuss.

**votes to begin by March 15**. That was the interpretation you used a
month ago.

Anthony