Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90783
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 207.46.100.125 as permitted sender)
To: Sascha Schumann <sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com>
CC: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
Thread-Index: AQHRU7V2VG1aBgIsaUK65yLx/Z+MxZ8E3zGAgAA46ICAAGFaoIAAkVQAgAAH4bk=
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:04:34 +0000
Message-ID: <D2D37477-2520-4040-97A6-268984553288@zend.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BY2PR02MB298A1648FE4552693C7174EACC20@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <43.8B.22511.75120A65@pb1.pair.com>
 <BY2PR02MB29847AC236A397C989235EBACC30@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>,<1385445140.3821.fd941ca0-f3d1-4b3c-8747-f8166ff46b39.open-xchange@ox.myrasec.de>
In-Reply-To: <1385445140.3821.fd941ca0-f3d1-4b3c-8747-f8166ff46b39.open-xchange@ox.myrasec.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: zend.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Jan 2016 15:04:34.8085
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR02MB300
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)


On 21 =E1=E9=F0=E5=D7 2016, at 7:36, Sascha Schumann <sascha.schumann@myras=
ecurity.com> wrote:
.
>> We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote f=
or a
>> duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so r=
evival
>> isn't always allowed in open source.
>=20
> I think Derick is abusing the RFC process here clearly. The necessary act=
ion
> should be clear based on that.

Sascha,

While personally I think it should not be allowed and be subject to the sam=
e rules as rejected RFCs - the Voting process we have doesn't deal with rev=
ival of RFCs that were withdrawn by their author.  So I don't think Derick =
is abusing the process in that regard.

The problem is that conceptually the RFC process isn't designed to handle i=
ssues like this.  Abuse may be an overkill to describe it - but it's clearl=
y something that should not be done.

Zeev=