Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90797
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain eliw.com designates 69.195.198.246 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
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>
 <D2D37477-2520-4040-97A6-268984553288@zend.com>
Message-ID: <56A10936.9010305@eliw.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:37:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2D37477-2520-4040-97A6-268984553288@zend.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="QOXjTdiht0fF3t3oIIqkAVfokrLgsKgCl"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: eli@eliw.com (Eli)

--QOXjTdiht0fF3t3oIIqkAVfokrLgsKgCl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 1/21/16 10:04 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On 21 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=A0=D7=95=D7=B3 2016, at 7:36, Sascha Schumann <sa=
scha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote:
> .
>>> We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vot=
e for a
>>> duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, s=
o revival
>>> isn't always allowed in open source.
>> I think Derick is abusing the RFC process here clearly. The necessary =
action
>> should be clear based on that.
> Sascha,
>
> While personally I think it should not be allowed and be subject to the=
 same rules as rejected RFCs - the Voting process we have doesn't deal wi=
th revival of RFCs that were withdrawn by their author.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 hand=
le issues like this.  Abuse may be an overkill to describe it - but it's =
clearly something that should not be done.
>
> Zeev

I do need to speak on this point.  And mirror in effect the words of
Andrea.  Someone choosing to withdraw an RFC, for any reason (such as,
but not limited to: personal health, life crisis, feeling bullied, etc.)

Is not an indication that an RFC failed, in any way.  So no 6-month ban
should be in place for that.   If that existed in fact, then multiple
issues could come from that, including bullying someone to drop an RFC
as an effective way of fighting one you didn't like.  OR  The idea of
opening an RFC quickly on a topic that you actually don't like, then
withdrawing it later before it goes to vote, just to stop discussion for
6 months.

I agree that there isn't any current process/policy in place to handle
this, and maybe, or maybe not, there should be.   However, just
considering a RFC 'failed' because a person had reason to back out of
running it themselves, should not be the end result.

Thanks,
Eli


--=20
|   Eli White   |   http://eliw.com/   |   Twitter: EliW   |



--QOXjTdiht0fF3t3oIIqkAVfokrLgsKgCl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlahCTcACgkQUTBVzmoxCKJnrwCfW7pPdA4+fJ8DzfykwSUXWAnk
p+UAn2gzzKrr01SopsL4w8CWqfDL6xis
=as97
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--QOXjTdiht0fF3t3oIIqkAVfokrLgsKgCl--