Hi!
>> I want to say that even a small and fairly
> simple code change,
> which I proposed to push through the bureaucracy, was difficult.
> I think this is what Nikita wants to change with this simpler procedure.
> More RFCs even on smaller changes, so that more broad input can be
> gathered
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:00 AM Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >> I want to say that even a small and fairly
> > simple code change,
> > which I proposed to push through the bureaucracy, was difficult.
>
> We're discussing RFCs. Small and fairly simple code change does not need
> an RFC.
I
Hi!
>> I want to say that even a small and fairly
> simple code change,
> which I proposed to push through the bureaucracy, was difficult.
We're discussing RFCs. Small and fairly simple code change does not need
an RFC. So either:
a) this change is indeed small and simple, and does not belong
Hi!
> Without a required discussion period, there could be slightly more
> 'incentive' for RFC authors to respond as quickly as possible, to 'get
> the discussion out the way'.
I see it exactly opposite - since we have no quorum requirement,
declaring the vote as soon as possible if a couple of
Hi!
> 1. There is no required discussion period. However, if an RFC vote is
> opened without leaving enough time for discussion, then voters can and
> should vote the RFC down on the grounds of insufficient discussion.
I don't think this is a good idea. I see no scenario it improves -
there's
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 12:08 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> Personally, I find any proposal that does not deal with clearly defining
>> voting eligibility not only questionable, but a non-starter, that has no
>> parallels in any other major Open Source projects.
>>
>
> Why? While I think the
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 16:24, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> What do you think?
> All RFCs must have a voting period of at least 14 days, announced in a
> separate [VOTE] thread.
That sounds mostly good to me. My feedback would be:
First, I wish people (including RFC authors) took more time to think
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 4:07:46 AM CST Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:18 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > The suggestion that the new RFC makes life more difficult, compared to the
> > current Voting RFC, is simply wrong. It is, in fact, very much the same -
> > except it's a lot
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:18 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nikita Popov
> > Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2019 6:24 PM
> > To: PHP internals
> > Subject: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC
> proc
> Am 03.02.2019 um 06:18 schrieb Zeev Suraski :
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Nikita Popov
>> Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2019 6:24 PM
>> To: PHP internals
>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nikita Popov
> Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2019 6:24 PM
> To: PHP internals
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process
>
> Hi internals,
>
> After discussing the topic with a number of current
Now THIS is a sensible proposal! It resolves the biggest issues in a very
simple and straightforward manner. And unlike the other RFC, this proposal
does not feel like an exclusionary power grab.
--Kris
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 8:24 AM Nikita Popov Hi internals,
>
> After discussing the topic
Just a quick note ...
I should say that bug fixes should not require an RFC at all, but the line
between bug, quick fix and feature is blurry. Sometimes it is necessary to
gather consensus and voting is the most effective way we have to do that.
Cheers
Joe
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 18:13, Joe
Hi Legale, internals,
> I want to say that even a small and fairly
simple code change,
which I proposed to push through the bureaucracy, was difficult.
This, I am afraid is all too common. Many many times, while working through
github issues, I will be uncomfortable with making a merge for
Hello, internals.
I am with you recently. But as a person with a fresh look, let me insert my
5 penny coin.
About half a year ago, I knew about the C language only that such a
language exists.
The reason I decided to contribute is curiosity. So I'm probably not as
motivated
as some of other
сб, 2 февр. 2019 г. в 18:24, Nikita Popov :
> Hi internals,
>
> After discussing the topic with a number of current and former
> contributors, I feel that the workflow & voting RFC currently under
> discussion is moving us in the wrong direction. I will not comment on the
> rather questionable
Afternoon Nikita, internals,
In stark contrast to the proposals being made to make contributing to PHP
more complex, slower, and burdened with bureaucracy: These are elegant
proposals that I think will invite new contributors to join our ranks,
which we no doubt need. They will allow current
Hi internals,
After discussing the topic with a number of current and former
contributors, I feel that the workflow & voting RFC currently under
discussion is moving us in the wrong direction. I will not comment on the
rather questionable proposed changes to voting eligibility, as these are
18 matches
Mail list logo
