Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97026
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7APAjuCKnk8nPMx+ST0TcOCvaCF4PaGgx7EwgokkjifA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL=_i_m79Q3MuvvuhNcxiXF-ARJOW22eGJSoYMZBct6d_xxY3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6Y-AYyH1-rx9zOhTXxJC5XT8uh6gbyWJQWoyWo3WofOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_mZryk1ofAyMwpBGq=OvQngvCX-6ruCCFxL4HFq=OQ3=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6Fbf9PcevPJMvEbrsj5QjSfqC1TR5UWckWe26VnpUoXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_nzQxFu-x625EHYO=jeGJhNYNg6iA-gz3q+BaCN1g0_Ww@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU7APAjuCKnk8nPMx+ST0TcOCvaCF4PaGgx7EwgokkjifA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 11:10:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPg3XxJquqRD3K4rxUdWN58GsG7xRQN3SzEChJ2VuRgLWLoTkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114daa30cc3de30541a57ba9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--001a114daa30cc3de30541a57ba9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 19 November 2016 at 10:45, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2016 11:34 AM, "Joe Watkins" <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
> >
> > Morning Pierre,
> >
> > Sorry, but yes.
> >
> > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
> >
> > > There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week.
>
> Seriously Joe, this is ridiculous. You are forcing a shorter period of time
> for something that does affect PHP at a whole.
>
> Be fair and let anyone raises their feedback.
>

Ignoring whether this RFC "touches the language" (phrasing I've always
taken issue with) and as such *requires* a two-week discussion period. I
think this particular RFC should be given two weeks, or longer, for
everyone to have their say.

Given that it is Thanksgiving next week, for purely practical reasons, I
think it necessitates a *longer* discussion period (than one week) as
interested parties may simply not be around at all. For a process-related
RFC such as this, forcing a one-week discussion period when a large number
of folks mightn't even be looking at the list, reads as irresponsible, to
me at least.

Regards,
Peter (who apologises in advance for poking the bear)

--001a114daa30cc3de30541a57ba9--