Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98594
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jakub.php@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <3aa0cb2a-4142-046e-d69f-b5481384099b@gmail.com>
References: <CADxrgCP4Mt=Jh_zi2qOXEyt2DTbnDFUb2gkxHg8NgeECL5j8_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADxrgCNsAOcdsi1e6QJbQYPn4NM_aBKWh_EHV37cA7OviTpHFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sKw5FUd1-kP3CWYfMBdTdGKN8fc7GSvtgFin5yYE-H_gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <15fa63cb-6ca6-b809-20b8-5b0e2d357b29@gmx.de> <1304f0ec-2957-2fd0-070e-9f096e3fbb6a@gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4Nraq91MZHWNoGTzcothTGcZJSFHYkNttt7CKR5=kH-LQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAFGhPhb5DSirS_-7T2xbnZs7wi50TahT6+prWv26US=zw@mail.gmail.com> <3aa0cb2a-4142-046e-d69f-b5481384099b@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:54:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAF-kJDf0FsN-SuKDd3=4vEC3RNYJbQDpk42zmZyGGkzcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e6c0e32cbe7054b1c7569
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--001a114e6c0e32cbe7054b1c7569
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 19 Mar 2017 21:19, "Rowan Collins" <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/03/2017 19:32, Jakub Zelenka wrote:

> I completely disagree with this. If there is not enough votes, it means
> that poeple either don't care (possibly don't  have time or don't  read
> properly mailing list) or don't understand the proposed thing.
>

Yes, those are the most likely reasons. There is also the possibility that
for some technical or timing reason people missed the announcement.



I think it shousld up to the maintainer to decide in such case and not to
> block a feature because not enaugh people is interested in it.
>

There is currently nobody authorised to make that decision, and granting it
to extension maintainers feels like a significant change to that role. As I
understand it, one of the big differences between a PECL extension and a
bundled one is that once in core, it's subject to decision-making by the
whole project, not the authors of the code.


I don't really think that we any definition for mantainer role. Currently
it varies depending on the extension. For example you won't see many RFC's
in date ext which is very well maintained by Derick and most of the changes
are decided by him which I think is a very good thing and works very well.




But even if we leave it as it is (accept it with only few votes) it is
> still much better than block it if there is no interest.
>

The entire RFC and voting process assumes that "no change" is the default
option - a language change requires two-thirds to make the change, not
two-thirds to reject it. If there were a "quorum" rule, it would be
entirely consistent for not enough votes to have the same effect as an
insufficiently large majority, and reject the change.


Sorry but I just don't agree with that. We are talking about a feature for
PDO that not many voters is interested in. That's completely different than
a language change. The interest in other core extensions is often the same.
If we had such rule on the minimal number of votes, one person could easily
block any progress on the any extension. It would not only slow down the
development but also annoy maintainers and people working on extension.
That's just a very bad idea IMHO.

Cheers

Jakub

--001a114e6c0e32cbe7054b1c7569--