On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickalla...@php.net>wrote:
> 2013/1/28 Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com>: > >> What should we be voting on when voting on an RFC: on the RFC proposed > >> feature, or on the patch itself? > > > > I think it should be exclusively on the concept. We never vote about > code > > changes anywhere - including when we refactor existing parts. Why would > > we vote about the implementation here? > > Just to +1 Zeev's opinion here. > It's perfectly valid to accept an RFC and comment on the > implementation on what should be improved or what sucks in it. > > If one is voting "no" mostly because of the implementation, then I > would say that there is a lack of information in the voting process > when saying "no". (No why... ?) > > Side node: whatever the formal "process" we will use we will always > have to be flexible enough to listen to each other and not falling > into bureaucracy too much. > > Patrick > voting no based on the implementation would be that bad if the more voters could participate in the discussion phase, as that is where those problems should be laid out and addressed. as Client also said, knowing why a person voted no is much easier to bear for the author even if he doesn't agree with those. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
