Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85402
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: <CAPwsocE8uzEZNaMxTZSwGyRmofaPFc1SSXv2yrYbK+KK9TaVWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg3XxKG3g=Oh79+_woyBedyP2CFkWPFLKnNuCuX6nTn0f6GKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPwsocGiGMS0GT9jERMNRboe_nC=sGZjYWFr=AhmOGP0WncJrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ26g5RmUhBWW0+oPMvL_kp5gE7E173YUtDm-tV8BiV=F1u_6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPwsocE8uzEZNaMxTZSwGyRmofaPFc1SSXv2yrYbK+KK9TaVWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:05:28 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5fenPnqJDQiS+AQNRexFve5YA7ryC_0fpbV6oGp0HXFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>, 
	Patrick Schaaf <php@bof.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11493f2ed50e5f0511dcd999
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQSFAtREVWXSBUbyBSRkMgb3IgTm90IFRvIFJGQyBbd2FzIFJlOiBbUEhQLURFVg==?=
	=?UTF-8?B?XSDlm57lpI3vvJogW1JGQ11bRElTQ1VTU0lPTl0gQWRkIHByZWdfcmVwbGFjZV9jYWxsYmFja19hcnJh?=
	=?UTF-8?B?eSBmdW5jdGlvbl0=?=
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11493f2ed50e5f0511dcd999
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mar 22, 2015 3:45 PM, "Leigh" <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 22 March 2015 at 07:00, Patrick Schaaf <php@bof.de> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Sure, I can agree on RFC all the things.
>
> > 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)
> >
> I suppose this could be part of the discussion on list when it is not
> obvious, then we at least have some documented opinions on the decision,
> rather than the assumptions of individuals.

The minimal discussion time is well documented and approved. Same for the
voting period.

--001a11493f2ed50e5f0511dcd999--