Am 05.06.2011 22:05, schrieb Zeev Suraski:
- There wasn't sufficient time, or nearly any time at all - between when
Brian pulled it off the attic, and when a vote was called. If my proposal is
accepted, there'll have to be at least two weeks between when a clearly
marked [RFC] email hits
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 1:46 AM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
In any case, if you
...@sugarcrm.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:17 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pierre Joye; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
Hi!
I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I'd to go with a 60% for language syntax, 50+1 for new exts or sapis.
Other question is who can vote. For one, I like to have external
people being able to vote, like frameworks/apps lead developers as
well as @php.net
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:27 PM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a little proposition here.
I'm not —at least currently— known for any app or framework, but I'd like my
voice to count, that is, if and only if the rest of the community thinks I
make sane arguments that are
On 2011-06-06, Chad Fulton chadful...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I would advocate a white list of core devs for formal voting (of
which, for example, I would not be a member). I think this mailing
list has grown sufficiently that public opinion can be gauged from
here: everyone can write their
Pierre,
I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications
updates needed for the RFC.
I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array syntax
RFC was executed was the key reason that made me feel these updates were in
fact necessary - I don't
For those of you who lost these proposals in the flood of RFC related emails of
recent days, here they are again:
---
First, we need to make sure that the RFC is properly evaluated by the members
of internals@, and that there's enough time for the RFC to be discussed here on
the list. As
Hi!
I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my proposal.
I'd like to update the Release Process RFC with these suggestions if
people like them.
I think these voting process additions totally make sense. But I am not
sure it makes sense to put everything in one release RFC.
...@sugarcrm.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:17 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pierre Joye; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on
the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))
Hi!
I'd still like to hear from others what they think about my
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I'm fine if the entire 'Feature selection and development' part goes out of
the RFC, but if there's any reference to how features are determined, we'd
better get it right.
Getting it totally out makes little sense as it
hi Zeev,
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Pierre,
I'm happy that we agree pretty much completely about the clarifications
updates needed for the RFC.
Same here :)
I do however want to point out that the problematic way the short array
syntax RFC was
[resending as the list appears to reject bit.ly URLs]
As I agree on everything you wrote here, I don't feel like we need to redo it.
The votes result is pretty clear, despite 2-3 people not willing to
vote for whatever reasons:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote
Take a
take #4..
Hmmm, not sure I like the comparison (with Egypt).
Major parts in the process weren't executed properly (I've spelled them out
so I won't repeat them).
It's quite possible that if they were executed properly, we'd have different
results. Perhaps not, maybe even probably
14 matches
Mail list logo
