On 02/08/2015 21:19, Marcio Almada wrote:
Hi
2015-08-02 16:52 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com>:
On 02/08/2015 20:10, Marcio Almada wrote:
As you pointed github issues, it's worth noting that Rust internals
already use github to manage RFCs:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AT-lang
That's interesting. Do you have a link to any documentation on the process
they use?
You can see the process outlined here
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs#what-the-process-is.
For instance, how does the RFC gain final approval / rejection?
The biggest difference regarding "approval" is that we express
"consensus" by having a vote with 2/3 majority (voting makes sense
here because consensus by discussion rarely happens anyway).
On their side, they usually don't have a voting phase like we do, the
"consensus" is built rationally during the discussion phases. See the
list of RFCs in final phase
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Afinal-comment-period,
as an example.
Ah, interesting, thanks. :)
Actually, skimming that documentation, the key difference is not that
they magically attain consensus 100% of the time, but that they have a
nominated "core team" who make the final decision (via separate
channels, based on previous discussion), though all the links to who
they actually are appear to be dead links.
Interestingly, they also currently have an open RFC about scaling their
governance, including the RFC process itself:
https://github.com/aturon/rfcs/blob/rust-governance/text/0000-rust-governance.md
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
