Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85393 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34825 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2015 07:01:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Mar 2015 07:01:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@bof.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@bof.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain bof.de designates 80.242.145.70 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@bof.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.242.145.70 mars.intermailgate.com Received: from [80.242.145.70] ([80.242.145.70:34646] helo=mars.intermailgate.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 30/73-00828-CA86E055 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:01:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 27089 invoked by uid 1009); 22 Mar 2015 08:00:57 +0100 Received: from 209.85.216.179 by mars (envelope-from , uid 89) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms (clamdscan: 0.96.2/20220. spamassassin: 3.3.1. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms. Clear:RC:1(209.85.216.179):. Processed in 0.268777 secs); 22 Mar 2015 07:00:57 -0000 X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN-Mail-From: php@bof.de via mars X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN: 1.25-st-qms (Clear:RC:1(209.85.216.179):. Processed in 0.268777 secs Process 27082) Received: from mail-qc0-f179.google.com (gmail@bof.de@209.85.216.179) by mars.intermailgate.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Mar 2015 08:00:57 +0100 Received: by qcto4 with SMTP id o4so123797397qct.3 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 00:00:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.227.71 with SMTP id iz7mr57350855qcb.0.1427007655624; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 00:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.82.198 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 00:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.82.198 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 00:00:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:00:55 +0100 Message-ID: To: Leigh Cc: Peter Cowburn , internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134abe867ca140511db1c8c Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQSFAtREVWXSBUbyBSRkMgb3IgTm90IFRvIFJGQyBbd2FzIFJlOiBbUEhQLURFVg==?= =?UTF-8?B?XSDlm57lpI3vvJogW1JGQ11bRElTQ1VTU0lPTl0gQWRkIHByZWdfcmVwbGFjZV9jYWxsYmFja19hcnJh?= =?UTF-8?B?eSBmdW5jdGlvbl0=?= From: php@bof.de (Patrick Schaaf) --001a1134abe867ca140511db1c8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Am 22.03.2015 02:30 schrieb "Leigh" : > > Yep, this does look like another case of simply ignoring rules. The fact > that what does and does not require an RFC does not help, this probably > didn't need one, however one was created and the rules need to be stuck to. Hmm. Is that really the line to be drawn? An RFC, by itself, provides a good point to spell out a change clearly, and anchor it for reference in discussion. Discussion on internals itself cannot provide that, it is too scattered, and POC code provides it at the code layer only. Thinking about documentation, for example. So, maybe the line is better drawn at what needs a vote, and what does not? Just an idea: as soon as an RFC goes up / leaves draft state, could it have a "needs a vote?" prevoting section? And if a certain minimum opts for "needs a vote" (within a minimum discussion period after leaving draft), one must be held? (thinking about a one week period and three or five needs-a-vote calls, or something similar) Patrick --001a1134abe867ca140511db1c8c--