Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84903
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9cc36c9a8c15ba411a8f2981ff18678c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP63B4758D2D902644C6BB24E2050@phx.gbl>
	<d29a6faab8dd07ce62f6df153c400b03@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALwr1GnMyQrJno24k+hC5WobE29VsQJqcirBYm5XucjW2dxWQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6e268626bc6b84a3886f39442c827bb6@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nEOpN74zNbc9maU9z-LUcOGN4xyAYi2_EGvv04brezdkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<bc4d2110a723924349c67ccb8d6f8990@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-uWP0RKsuHRAx0pPOj9wrysthjgouTc4SECaZgkujJGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9cc36c9a8c15ba411a8f2981ff18678c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:33:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CABDNdAG0yRB0_X1mFZCK23Zu=H-O87ppZ0AXMWiAbp1JoqHxbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Philip Sturgeon)

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
>> everybody went by the "all votes must start by the 15th" interpretation
>> that
>> has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
>> whopping six RFC votes started today? It isn't.
>>
>>
>> Please don't start reinterpreting things to fit your needs. I am
>> personally
>> totally fine with extending the PHP 7 timeline by say one month - but if
>> we do
>> that, let's make it official and applying to everyone, not just some
>> particular
>> RFC. I know for sure that there are a number of additional RFCs that would
>> have been submitted for PHP 7 had anyone known that it'll be allowed.
>
> First off, this is Bob's interpretation which he brought up on Friday.  Yes,
> ideally I would have read the original text during the discussion period and
> commented on it, but I didn't.  I think the 3 month period for
> implementation (that's mostly done) and testing gives a very reasonable time
> period to absorb the most lax of interpretations.
>
> I think it would be a shame to delay the timeline for this, but I also think
> it would be a shame for the timeline - that was *clearly* not designed to
> create de-facto bias towards one RFC or the other - to do exactly that.
>
> Even if we were to push the timeline out by a bit, how do we do it?  An RFC
> with a minimum discussion period of two weeks and another week for a vote?
> That kind of defeats the purpose.  A gentlemen's agreement?  Something else?
>
> Zeev
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>

"Even if we were to push the timeline out by a bit, how do we do it?"

This is ~"My approach hasn't won yet, and instead of conceding default
due to democracy in action, I would like to change the process.

I am not insulting you. I am not attacking you. But this is some
bizarre stuff that is more than sneaky, and you really need to stop.

One RFC has won. Another RFC has lost. A third RFC is a backup plan
and nothing more.

Let the winning RFC win and lets get on with something else, because
today is the feature freeze and you don't get to manipulate that to
suit your own needs just because you want to.