On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 12:59 AM M. W. Moe <mo.mu....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> the point Stanislav is really not about whom; that's about thinking, work,
> effort, personal walk thru a problem;
> and I am sorry he is fully right; live example:
>
> "I think that's been inconsistencies from the part of early contributors
> which is the same reason we are having "haystack and needle" problem and
> I'm not sure there's a problem fixing those old days mistake."
>
> is this embodiment of arrogance, vulgarity hence stupidity because to me
> they are synonyms helps anyone?
>
> Regards.
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:39 PM Mark Randall <marand...@php.net> wrote:
>
> > On 09/10/2019 00:26, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > > That's part of the problem. RFC should be for something that is
> > > necessary and beneficial for the whole community, doubly and triply so
> > > when we're talking about BC breaks. It shouldn't be just "whatever I
> > > want, let me put it to a vote". RFCs are not a twitter poll where
> > > anybody can vote on anything and anything goes. It should be used
> > > responsibly, and if people don't understand this responsibility maybe
> > > it's too early for them to propose any RFCs.
> >
> > Might I request that you please stick to discussing the actual topic of
> > the RFC, rather than trying to shift the conversation towards who can
> > and cannot propose RFCs :-)
> >
> > If you want to discuss changing the RFC mechanics and who is entitled to
> > make them, please make your own RFC.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Mark Randall
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
>
I think you've been using too much of "vulg**, stup**, etc" that makes
absolute nonsense since yesterday.
Can you just tone down or watch what you write if you're vexing out about
someone else's opinion?

Even I can do same back to you, but won't stoop so low to that level.

I think this list should be for mature minds that can agree or disagree
peacefully without stupidity in becoming.

>

Reply via email to