I don't think there is a valid way to define "fundamental BC breaks" or
"mere BC breaks", all votes will always be a reasonable vote as much as
there are people to vote on it.
Whats special or different about BC break that would require slim margin or
consensus votes on where this is dealing with
Thank you Zeev,
I would say it's something to start a more productive discussion.
Maybe not everybody would agree from the start with what you mentioned but
after resonable talks, it would get to some common conclusions.
If I were to summarize, there needs to be defined the voting process for:
1
I agree with pretty much everything Zeev has said. I've added a few
additional thoughts
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:42 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Larry Garfield
> wrote:
>
> > Simple question for those that keep arguing that the RFC process is only
> > applicable to
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> Simple question for those that keep arguing that the RFC process is only
> applicable to a certain subset of issues:
>
> OK, so what's the alternative?
>
> If we wanted to make a structural or governance change to PHP, what is the
> process?
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 6:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > For there to be a veto, of the kind that anyone can actually use, it must
> > be established somewhere.
>
> And that's what I am concerned about. Once we start assuming the RFC
> process is not for solving technical questions
Hi!
> For there to be a veto, of the kind that anyone can actually use, it must
> be established somewhere.
And that's what I am concerned about. Once we start assuming the RFC
process is not for solving technical questions for everything, we get
into this kind of rule lawyering and nitpicking in
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:01 AM Vesselin Kenashkov
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The only thing I dislike a lot is the general tone of these
> > discussions, that should be different, that makes me sad and really
> > not willing to participate in any w
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:18 PM Benjamin Eberlei
wrote:
>
> We heard you repeating the RFC process isn't applicable very often now,
> but a productive way forward needs to take it into account to make any
> change in governance.
>
I think it can actually be taken into account. As I wrote - we c
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>
> The only thing I dislike a lot is the general tone of these
> discussions, that should be different, that makes me sad and really
> not willing to participate in any way.
>
> Hi everyone,
I just want to second that feeling of Pierre. Im a u
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:18 PM Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> We heard you repeating the RFC process isn't applicable very often now, but
> a productive way forward needs to take it into account to make any change
> in governance.
>
> For many of the current contributors RFC+Voting process is the onl
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:14 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> This note isn't really for Joe, who will likely would not pay too much if
> any attention to whatever I or whomever else who disagrees with his
> position on the universal applicability of the Voting RFC in its current
> form has to say.
> Th
For there to be a veto, of the kind that anyone can actually use, it must
be established somewhere.
What you are talking about simply does not exist, you can assert all you
like that "the group" can do whatever they like, but they have no means to
do so that any other contributor needs to recogniz
Hi Joe,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:25 PM Joe Watkins wrote:
>
> Pierre,
>
> I repeat, there are no vetos, for anyone.
Sorry to factually disagree here. Whether I or you like it is not
relevant here.
By the way, can we focus on more important points, I do think that
will bring the whole thing a b
Pierre,
I repeat, there are no vetos, for anyone.
Cheers
Joe
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:04, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Pierre Joye wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joe Watkins wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Pierre,
> > >
> > > > The RFC process defines a veto an
This note isn't really for Joe, who will likely would not pay too much if
any attention to whatever I or whomever else who disagrees with his
position on the universal applicability of the Voting RFC in its current
form has to say.
This is for the many other folks following this and other threads.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joe Watkins wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pierre,
> >
> > > The RFC process defines a veto and could be applied when needed.
> >
> > Can you show me where that is defined please ?
>
> In the current version, there is no me
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joe Watkins wrote:
>
> Hi Pierre,
>
> > The RFC process defines a veto and could be applied when needed.
>
> Can you show me where that is defined please ?
In the current version, there is no mention of veto, which surprises
me. It was definitively something that w
Hi Pierre,
> The RFC process defines a veto and could be applied when needed.
Can you show me where that is defined please ?
Cheers
Joe
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 10:36, Peter Bowyer
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 14:16, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > > How can an undefined group have copyright vest
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 14:16, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > How can an undefined group have copyright vested in it?
>
> It's very much well-defined. And certainly not by Wikipedia, but in the
> PHP source code and the php.net website itself. Right at the top of the
> Credit page:
> https://www.php.ne
Good afternoon Joe,
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:48 PM Joe Watkins wrote:
> There is confusion among the community, and contained in the documented
> history of PHP on the wider internet.
>
> The Wikipedia states that PHP is developed by the PHP Group, in saying this
> it is (must be) referring to
Hi!
> Because it's a waste of everyone's time. The RFC process is the only one
> we have.
So? There was time where we had none. Processes are not some precious
jewels that we occasionally happen to find by chance but can't have any
more. We can create them.
> To clarify, I wasn't trying to impos
Stas,
> Not can't, shouldn't be. And I don't see any reason why we should stop
saying that.
Because it's a waste of everyone's time. The RFC process is the only one we
have.
> RFC process was not created to be sole governing body for PHP project
and something that makes every vote mandatory for
Hi!
> I'd like it if we could stop saying the RFC process can't be used for one
> thing or another, it's patently false.
Not can't, shouldn't be. And I don't see any reason why we should stop
saying that.
> To say it's not suitable for these things is a total nonsense, we already
> use it for th
Morning internals,
I've got some good feedback here, my suggested words were indeed rather
loose.
I'd like it if we could stop saying the RFC process can't be used for one
thing or another, it's patently false.
The RFC process introduced itself, amends itself, is used for deprecation,
addition,
Hi Joe
Den søn. 15. sep. 2019 kl. 08.48 skrev Joe Watkins :
>
> Morning internals,
>
> There is confusion among the community, and contained in the documented
> history of PHP on the wider internet.
>
> The Wikipedia states that PHP is developed by the PHP Group, in saying this
> it is (must be) r
> > On Sep 15, 2019 at 8:57 AM,wrote: > >
Anyone may initiate an RFC for any subject. > For example, this phrasing
means the RFC system itself can be put up to vote, to be removed and replaced
with something entirely non-democratic. I do not want dive too deep into this
deb
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019, 11:41 PM Olumide Samson wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019, 8:33 PM Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Does anyone object to any of those words ?
>>
>> Yes. I do not think precommitting to implement anything that has been
>> put on wiki and passed the vote is a goo
Hi!
> Then we should undo all changes (as far as possible) caused by the RFCs
> listed in the Process and Policy section[1], probably starting with the
> Voting (aka. RFC) process RFC itself, which by the way, states as
> introduction since its very first version from 2011 (emphasis mine):
>
> |
On 15.09.2019 at 21:33, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> Do we need to vote on changing the introduction (I'm happy to start an rfc
>> for this, if necessary) ?
>
> I don't think RFCs were meant to essentially remake all project
> governance structure. They were meant for solving technical questions,
Hi!
> Does anyone object to any of those words ?
Yes. I do not think precommitting to implement anything that has been
put on wiki and passed the vote is a good thing. Its a good conflict
resolution mechanism when we're talking about where or not to implement
certain technical feature. But IMO it
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019, 17:28 Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think it's clear you don't realize how rude you are, no surprises there.
> I'm not going to continue discussing this topic with you. You seem to
> think my words carry no weight, I'm absolutely sure yours don't carry any
> weight - let's save e
I think it's clear you don't realize how rude you are, no surprises there.
I'm not going to continue discussing this topic with you. You seem to
think my words carry no weight, I'm absolutely sure yours don't carry any
weight - let's save everyone some time mental strain.
To everyone else - I sta
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 15:08, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 4:44 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is not appropriate.
>>
>> If it continues, we are going to have to look at bringing in a code of
>> conduct to prevent this disruptive behaviour from being such a
>> negative effect
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 14:16, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> We a new mechanism for deprecations/radical changes
The current maintainers are not bound by choices made by other people,
years ago.
No-one wants to break stuff just for the sake of it, but we are free
to correct mistakes that were made in t
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 2:37 PM Peter Bowyer
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 06:48, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
> > The Wikipedia states that PHP is developed by the PHP Group, in saying
> this
> > it is (must be) referring to internals as a whole, but our own
> > documentation names members of the gro
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 13:57, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> Some things simply have to be off limits. What are those things?
PHP doesn't currently have a constitution, so currently voting is the
only way of deciding things. Also how we vote is one of the things
that people are allowed to vote on.
Eve
Hi all,
> Does anyone object to any of those words ?
This strikes me as yet another attempt at a power grab, so many of the words
are objectionable. However, this phrase will serve to show the weakness of the
proposal:
> Anyone may initiate an RFC for any subject.
There needs to be an artic
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 06:48, Joe Watkins wrote:
> The Wikipedia states that PHP is developed by the PHP Group, in saying this
> it is (must be) referring to internals as a whole, but our own
> documentation names members of the group - who aren't even around mostly.
>
> I think we need to clarif
38 matches
Mail list logo
