On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 23:46, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> I've been doing a horrible job at explaining myself if that's what you think
> I'm trying to do.
As I said before, I think the difficulty has been caused by presenting
a complete set of solutions to multiple problems at once, without
Good morning Zeev :)
Thanks you for this RFC. I think it is long due to get a status of
where we are, what we like to have and what we can improve. My
apologize for the long reply, and as I got a mention in this reply, I
felt the need to put my grain of salt in this discussion. I hope you
don't
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:02 PM Côme Chilliet wrote:
> Le mardi 5 février 2019, 11:53:01 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> > We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I would say that the way
> > virtually every other major Open Source project serves as a fairly good
> > proof point for my
Le mardi 5 février 2019, 11:53:01 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I would say that the way
> virtually every other major Open Source project serves as a fairly good
> proof point for my position. In fact, even with the new eligible voting
> criteria,
Le mardi 5 février 2019, 02:38:50 CET Stanislav Malyshev a écrit :
> Hi!
Hi!
> Do you imagine Linus
> asking a vote of all Linux users about how to implement a kernel driver
> and implementing it only in a way that majority of Linux users approves?
Not sure that would be so bad.
At least until
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:09 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:37 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> > meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> > explanation on why you
Hi!
> To me that is the purpose of voting, what you’re saying is like
> complaining that in a democracy old people with experience has the
> same voting power than young ones.
To be clear, PHP user community is not a democracy, neither we want to
be. In democracy, every person (marginal cases
Hi again,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:37 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> explanation on why you need one - enough to convince one of the folks
> with admin rights on
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:07 AM Côme Chilliet wrote:
> Le mardi 5 février 2019, 10:36:48 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> > Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> > meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> > explanation on why you need one -
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Reading the RFC, here's my thoughts:
>
Thanks for the detailed response!
> 1. Do we really need different classification of changes? I think having
> one single vote procedure would have larger benefit, and RFC that fails
>
This is truly developer way. :-)
On Feb 5, 2019 01:10, "Christoph M. Becker" wrote:
>
> On 04.02.2019 at 23:59, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>
> > Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield
> > :
> >
> >> To answer both you and Sanislav here together, as he raised a similar
> >>
Le mardi 5 février 2019, 10:36:48 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> explanation on why you need one - enough to convince one of the folks
> with admin rights on
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrey Andreev
> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:18 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Dan Ackroyd ; PHP internals
>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
>
> You keep saying that, but it hasn't bee
Hi again,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:32 AM Kris Craig wrote:
> Stripping any existing contributors of our voting rights is a non-starter for
> me, period. Any changes must not be applied retroactively, as that would
> just lead to all kinds of problems and severe animosity/drama.
>
> The
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019, 7:18 PM Andrey Andreev Hi,
>
> I was avoiding this, but since the discussion has already turned into
> all about who gets to vote, I might as well ...
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > the barrier to obtaining a vote is ridiculously low.
>
> You keep
Hi,
I was avoiding this, but since the discussion has already turned into
all about who gets to vote, I might as well ...
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> the barrier to obtaining a vote is ridiculously low.
You keep saying that, but it hasn't been explained how it is so.
Den tir. 5. feb. 2019 kl. 02.22 skrev Kalle Sommer Nielsen :
> I agree with that as long as it is without the PHP Project boundaries,
s/without/within
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
ka...@php.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Den tir. 5. feb. 2019 kl. 02.10 skrev Christoph M. Becker :
> In my opinion, the question “who is eligible to vote” is closely tied to
> the RFC *at hand*. For instance, str_begins() wouldn't be much of a
> maintainance burden, and whether it should be included into the PHP core
> could very well
On 04.02.2019 at 23:59, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield :
>
>> To answer both you and Sanislav here together, as he raised a similar point,
>> that presumes that 100% of the "invited outsiders" vote on every RFC. I
>> think
>> that is unlikely,
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Ackroyd
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 10:24 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
>
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 06:19, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
>
Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield :
>
> It's not absurd, it's a matter of degrees. As Zeev noted in a later email,
> the current voting RFC already calls for some voting-level input from "major
> customers", but not a controlling vote.
> To use hyperbolic examples:
>
> Would
Hello and thanks for the RFC.
I think the Eligible Voters Section is too complex to be
addressed/bundled in this RFC. I think it deserves another RFC.
Most discussions here are rightfully about this section. To add my opinion:
* I don't understand the special treatment for PHP-FIG. This
Hi!
> What's the threshold of absurdity here? That we could debate. However, it
> is
> not 0. (I'd personally put it in the 10-20 range, bearing in mind that not
> all of them would vote all the time anyway, just like core developers, but
> others may feel differently.)
I am not sure
Hi!
Reading the RFC, here's my thoughts:
1. Do we really need different classification of changes? I think having
one single vote procedure would have larger benefit, and RFC that fails
2/3 requirement would be suspect anyway. RFCs can have parts - "whether
we do it" and "how exactly we do it" -
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 06:19, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:14 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>> Hi Zeev,
>>
>> Please can you very clearly state what problem you are trying to solve
>> by changing the rules about who can vote.
>
> Fair enough, I've heard that question from several
On Friday, February 1, 2019 7:11:40 PM CST Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Den fre. 1. feb. 2019 kl. 02.42 skrev Larry Garfield
> > > So I would support a mechanism of some sort to give formal voting
rights
> > to
> > non-internals-C-developers who are still significant-PHP-contributors, as
> >
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:14 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > >
> > > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> > many of the issues that have plagued our RFC
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:14 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
>
> Hi Zeev,
>
>
On Sa, 2019-02-02 at 01:20 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> So, how do we identify those who are currently the most contributory?
> Commits mostly, though we can't ignore other qualities. In a 2003
> paper[1], Scacchi (UC Irvine) defined a F/OSS meritocracy pyramid in
> which those at the top had
On 2.02.19 г. 3:41 ч., Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Do, 2019-01-31 at 14:28 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
2. Core developers are defined as the top 13 committers within the
period of two years since voting began. A core developer is a de
facto
community member, but caucuses as a core
Hi!
> 1) Please see my earlier message. The way FIG is structured, one could
> extend
> voting rights to project representatives, the core committee, both, or
> neither. The core committee is 12 people. Project reps are ~36 currently.
> Adding 12 people to the voting pool would not
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:41 PM Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Do, 2019-01-31 at 14:28 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> >
> >2. Core developers are defined as the top 13 committers within the
> >period of two years since voting began. A core developer is a de
> > facto
> >community
On Do, 2019-01-31 at 14:28 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
> 2. Core developers are defined as the top 13 committers within the
> period of two years since voting began. A core developer is a de
> facto
> community member, but caucuses as a core developer.
How do you define "top 13
Den fre. 1. feb. 2019 kl. 02.42 skrev Larry Garfield :
> Disclosure: I am a long-time member of PHP-FIG, but I am NOT speaking on
> behalf of FIG in this post, only for myself.
>
> As Zeev noted, I think it's very good to have some mechanism for formal
> involvement from people who aren't C
Hi,
Regarding the definitions of what constitutes a Change, a Packaging
Decision and an Implementation Decision, I think it does a better job than
the current voting RFC but IMHO it still is over-complicated. Trying to
specify which changes are which just for the sake of allowing some things
to
On 01/02/2019 18:13, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> btw, you seem to have completely overlooked extension maintainers from
> your list of people who should have a vote on PHP internals.
And those who have involved themselves in writing tests for PHP through
events like TestFests, and who probably have
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve many
> of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
Hi Zeev,
Please can you very clearly state what problem you are trying
All,
I have managed to avoid commenting on PHP-FIG since the group was dissolved,
then re-constituted under the same name, without my participation as one of its
original founding members.
However, I cannot let this phrasing pass:
On Feb 1, 2019, at 10:30, Larry Garfield wrote:
> FIG today
On Friday, February 1, 2019 2:34:12 AM CST Kris Craig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stanislav Malyshev
>
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I haven't fully read the RFC yet, so I'll come back with more formed
> > opinion about it probably, but wanted to comment about a couple of
> >
> >
On 01/02/2019 08:34, Kris Craig wrote:
The more I think about this, the less I like it. According to the page
linked to from the RFC, there are 51 current FIG members who would gain a
vote. So this RFC would strip most contributers of their voting rights
(including me), while simultaneously
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I haven't fully read the RFC yet, so I'll come back with more formed
> opinion about it probably, but wanted to comment about a couple of
> points here:
>
> > Reasoning: If somebody is out of the project for 10 years they
Hi!
I haven't fully read the RFC yet, so I'll come back with more formed
opinion about it probably, but wanted to comment about a couple of
points here:
> Reasoning: If somebody is out of the project for 10 years they probably
> lost track on how the language and needs evolved and just voting
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:17:02 PM CST Chase Peeler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Zeev
> > >
> > > Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> > > > Without
Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 20.17 skrev Chase Peeler :
> I don't know if there is a good way to implement it, but I definitely think
> there is value in some sort of voice being given to those that use PHP to
> build things, but don't contribute to the actual source.
>
> I think it's important,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:07 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:53 PM Kris Craig wrote:
>
> > I think you may be over-reaching a bit on the eligible voters part. Keep
> > in mind that all those who would be affected would still be able to vote
> on
> > this RFC. I think it's
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Zeev
> >
> > Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> > >
> > > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> > many of the
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi Zeev
>
> Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> >
> > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced
On Do, 2019-01-31 at 15:44 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively
> solve many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it
> was hastily introduced in 2011:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2019
>
Being mostly outside I
Hi Kris
Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 18.03 skrev Kris Craig :
> Given how complex and controversial this question of restricting who can vote
> is, I propose that it be moved to its own RFC instead of being bundled with
> this one. It would certainly boost likelihood of passage, if nothing else,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:58 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen Hi Zeev
>
> Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> >
> > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
> >
Hi Zeev
Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
>
> Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve many
> of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
>
>
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2019
I
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:53 PM Kris Craig wrote:
> I think you may be over-reaching a bit on the eligible voters part. Keep
> in mind that all those who would be affected would still be able to vote on
> this RFC. I think it's too restrictive on that part.
>
I realized that this part of the
I think you may be over-reaching a bit on the eligible voters part. Keep
in mind that all those who would be affected would still be able to vote on
this RFC. I think it's too restrictive on that part.
Also, why does FIG get special treatment?
--Kris
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:44 AM Zeev
Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve many of
the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily introduced in
2011:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2019
Emphasis on ‘attempting’. I’m sure there are still a lot of holes in it that
should
54 matches
Mail list logo
