On 30 Jan 2016 19:37, "Joe Constant" <j...@joeconstant.com> wrote: > > >>P.S. Please don't top post... ;) > I'm not trying to thread hijack. Just trying to add to the discussion. The ops post was in regards to RFCs passing to easily. My contention with the low voter turnout is in line (or at least intended to be in line) with that.
No worries. It was just a friendly reminder that top posting makes a discussion hard to follow. ;) I didn't try to suggest that you are trying to hijack the thread. Btw. you still top post (the previous email was below...) :) try to reply into the message or below, then it's cool ;) > > >> It's often a specific feature for extension so moving everything to PECL is not really an option. > My argument is that if it affects core, a certain percentage of voting members (people that have taken on the responsibility of directing the future of core) should be required to vote. I understand that they may not be interested, but if the voter turnout is really that low, the proponents should be doing more to drum up interest rather than simply allowing an RFC to pass. I think that the main problem is that many of our core extensions are quite neglected. There is a much bigger interest in a fancy core engine (language) features than in fixing bugs or adding small features to the core extension. I don't think there should be any limit on number of votes as it would make it hard to get small features in. Of course there is no point in doing RFC if there is no objection but if there was a single objection to a small feature, then it would be almost impossible to get it in. Cheers Jakub
