Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85262
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <07cc01d062b4$863797d0$92a6c770$@php.net>
References: <885a29db28bc96b2d3cd2ac96907e39f@mail.gmail.com>
	<077401d06268$2b597c30$820c7490$@php.net>
	<CA+kxMuRG7RV74uD=pJxB2M3LS9Ty1xB-+TN_ddMpYg4xgtjpwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<07c201d062b0$5d766230$18632690$@php.net>
	<07cc01d062b4$863797d0$92a6c770$@php.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:34:22 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5ByrsG7qnT529cjV4awtM=N6KowHfT-jfd_Waa-opi9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "francois@php.net" <francois@php.net>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Question/comment about the Array to String conversion RFC
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net>=
 wrote:
> May I also add that it is not the first time people raise concerns about =
RFCs when vote starts. On different occasions, it was clear that most had n=
ot read the RFC before the vote was announced. I even have two RFCs which w=
ere planned for 7.0 and won't be in because I had to stop the vote and rest=
art a discussion. When we have short timelines, as for 7.0, it's a real pro=
blem because restarting a discussion easily adds one month to the approval =
process. Actually, I don't know if, in this case, I shouldn't reply that th=
e discussion is over and that it's just too late to wake up.

The problem is not the RFC process but us accepting idealistic
timelnes. It is why I did not vote (for the ones that did not respect
the RFC process) or no for the ones I totally disagree with.

But this is off topic imho, we took these decisions now we have to
work with that.

In any case, one thing has to end, the playing with the rules.
Discussions must happen for at least two weeks before a RFC goes to
vote, mail must be sent to announce each phase. And last but not
least, editing a RFC during or after the votes in a way that it
changes what people votes for or against is not something I want to
see. We have to solve this issue. Learning by doing :)

Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org