Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87540
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAGbiJu-No6nmVt6O05e6oiEJ1jBD-T2fXxLJSMpksf2CE_9HJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+v7Rwg=DEhtpqc3XzwDqw1Q7aX3_Mvu8FUZhVLeM77jHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGbiJu9_10HU2xCr=rUp72hxPgyvXxVf42s67W_4WorNCANpLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <55BE74F1.3030006@gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+ufQv+8BUhoRBD2ihoOaF3mZ0F2nLfBogxa1AV9=HGhYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55BE81BB.2060501@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 21:46:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOsHV+ufQv+8BUhoRBD2ihoOaF3mZ0F2nLfBogxa1AV9=HGhYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Move internals discussion to a better medium
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 02/08/2015 21:19, Marcio Almada wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2015-08-02 16:52 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>:
>> On 02/08/2015 20:10, Marcio Almada wrote:
>>> As you pointed github issues, it's worth noting that Rust internals
>>> already use github to manage RFCs:
>>> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AT-lang
>>
>> That's interesting. Do you have a link to any documentation on the process
>> they use?
> You can see the process outlined here
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs#what-the-process-is.
>
>> For instance, how does the RFC gain final approval / rejection?
> The biggest difference regarding "approval" is that we express
> "consensus" by having a vote with 2/3 majority (voting makes sense
> here because consensus by discussion rarely happens anyway).
>
> On their side, they usually don't have a voting phase like we do, the
> "consensus" is built rationally during the discussion phases. See the
> list of RFCs in final phase
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Afinal-comment-period,
> as an example.

Ah, interesting, thanks. :)

Actually, skimming that documentation, the key difference is not that 
they magically attain consensus 100% of the time, but that they have a 
nominated "core team" who make the final decision (via separate 
channels, based on previous discussion), though all the links to who 
they actually are appear to be dead links.

Interestingly, they also currently have an open RFC about scaling their 
governance, including the RFC process itself: 
https://github.com/aturon/rfcs/blob/rust-governance/text/0000-rust-governance.md

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]