Am 05.06.2011 22:05, schrieb Zeev Suraski:
- There wasn't sufficient time, or nearly any time at all - between when
Brian pulled it off the attic, and when a vote was called. If my proposal is
accepted, there'll have to be at least two weeks between when a clearly
marked [RFC] email hits
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 1:46 AM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
In any case, if you
...@sugarcrm.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:17 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pierre Joye; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
Hi!
I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I'd to go with a 60% for language syntax, 50+1 for new exts or sapis.
Other question is who can vote. For one, I like to have external
people being able to vote, like frameworks/apps lead developers as
well as @php.net
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:27 PM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a little proposition here.
I'm not —at least currently— known for any app or framework, but I'd like my
voice to count, that is, if and only if the rest of the community thinks I
make sane arguments that are
On 2011-06-06, Chad Fulton chadful...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I would advocate a white list of core devs for formal voting (of
which, for example, I would not be a member). I think this mailing
list has grown sufficiently that public opinion can be gauged from
here: everyone can write their
On Jun 3, 2011, at 4:43 AM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
- a call to vote is easily drowned out on the ML with all the noise
I read the same ML as you do :) Using threaded email client it is very
easy to separate new threads and see calls for
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
wrote:
[VOTE] is a good idea, let's make it [VOTE].
There is no plugin used for it yet, and that's my problem with it.
Well, votes aren't announced yet either :)
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Some of you may have followed the twitter conversation that Pierre and I had
at the end of last week; In my opinion, this dry (or partially wet) run that
we had in the last few days of a voting process pointed to several
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 17:20, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Some of you may have followed the twitter conversation that Pierre and I had
at the end of last week; In my opinion, this dry (or partially wet) run
that
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
release process, let adopt it already!) and move on with 5.4.
This is a prime example of what we're talking
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Hannes Magnusson
hannes.magnus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 17:20, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Some of you may have followed the twitter conversation that Pierre and I
Pierre,
I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications
updates needed for the RFC.
I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array syntax
RFC was executed was the key reason that made me feel these updates were in
fact necessary - I don't
For those of you who lost these proposals in the flood of RFC related emails of
recent days, here they are again:
---
First, we need to make sure that the RFC is properly evaluated by the members
of internals@, and that there's enough time for the RFC to be discussed here on
the list. As
Hi!
I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my proposal.
I'd like to update the Release Process RFC with these suggestions if
people like them.
I think these voting process additions totally make sense. But I am not
sure it makes sense to put everything in one release RFC.
...@sugarcrm.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:17 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pierre Joye; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
Hi!
I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my
On 2011-06-05, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philip Olson phi...@roshambo.org wrote:
I'd to say that I'm very happy to finally see such discussions
happening, let sort the base (99% is done by our existing RFC about
release process, let adopt it
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I'm fine if the entire 'Feature selection and development' part goes out of
the RFC, but if there's any reference to how features are determined, we'd
better get it right.
Getting it totally out makes little sense as it
hi Zeev,
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Pierre,
I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications
updates needed for the RFC.
Same here :)
I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array
syntax RFC was
[resending as the list appears to reject bit.ly URLs]
As I agree on everything you wrote here, I don't feel like we need to redo it.
The votes result is pretty clear, despite 2-3 people not willing to
vote for whatever reasons:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote
Take a
take #4..
Hmmm, not sure I like the comparison (with Egypt).
Major parts in the process weren't executed properly (I've spelled them out
so I won't repeat them).
It's quite possible that if they were executed properly, we'd have different
results. Perhaps not, maybe even probably
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
[VOTE] is a good idea, let's make it [VOTE].
There is no plugin used for it yet, and that's my problem with it.
Well, votes aren't announced yet either :) I'll try to get it set up ASAP
and see how it works, before
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
[VOTE] is a good idea, let's make it [VOTE].
There is no plugin used for it yet, and that's my problem with it.
Well, votes aren't announced yet either :) I'll try
04, 2011 9:30 AM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: Stas Malyshev; Derick Rethans; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV]
5.4 moving forward)
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
hi Philip,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Philip Olson phi...@roshambo.org wrote:
- RFC: Request For Comments
Thanks for the reminder. But RFC got approved at some point as well.
See the numerous W3C RFCs for some known examples.
And while doing so, not revert to a vote (RFV?) simply
Hi!
Please keep them in the wiki as we planed to do. THere are plugins and
it is very easy to manage, allows per section voting etc.
I've installed voting plugin, see description here:
http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:doodle2
and example how it looks here at the end (login required to vote):
right, that's the one I was willing to install as well, great that you
did it! Thanks :)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Please keep them in the wiki as we planed to do. THere are plugins and
it is very easy to manage, allows per section voting
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 19:58, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Please keep them in the wiki as we planed to do. THere are plugins and
it is very easy to manage, allows per section voting etc.
I've installed voting plugin, see description here:
Hi!
Voting on the wiki? Yuck. If you want participation, do it here on the
mailinglist and store the record in the wiki. If all votes are showing
Voting on ML is messy and means somebody needs to read every message on
the list and look for votes, however long, tedious and offtopic the
Why doesnt voting happen using a poll/voting engine. Written in (gasp) PHP!
(although soon PJSON)
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:03 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Voting on the wiki? Yuck. If you want participation, do it here on the
mailinglist and store the record in the
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Voting on the wiki? Yuck. If you want participation, do it here on the
mailinglist and store the record in the wiki. If all votes are showing
Voting on ML is messy and means somebody needs to read every message on the
list and look for votes,
Have you guys considered doodle.com? I think you are all stressing way too
much over the voting process. When a vote is closed you can then transfer
the decision to the RFC.
Drak
On 3 June 2011 14:12, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Derick Rethans
Hi!
- a call to vote is easily drowned out on the ML with all the noise
I read the same ML as you do :) Using threaded email client it is very
easy to separate new threads and see calls for votes. Also, voting on ML
does not solve the drowning out problem, it makes it worse as about
80% of
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
- a call to vote is easily drowned out on the ML with all the noise
I read the same ML as you do :) Using threaded email client it is very
easy to separate new threads and see calls for votes.
That is subjective. And even with a threaded client, if
Hi!
That is subjective. And even with a threaded client, if there are 80+
new messages then the call for vote is drowned out. *Requiring*
There was never 80+ new messages on different topics on the list. There
are 3-4 topics max, if you not count commit messages. Each of them can
contain
35 matches
Mail list logo
