On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: > On 11/10/2011 10:38 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: >> >>> We are not talking about a specific RFC here. This discussion is about >>> changing the current way of voting. >> >> Yes, and that's what I'm talking about too. > > Ok, then I guess I don't understand what your argument is. We already > agreed that leaders of large projects get a vote and the voting RFC > (which you helped write) is quite clear that language changes need a 2/3 > majority to pass but 50%+1 for other changes. Could you please clearly > state what it is you want to change then? Because so far to me it sounds > a bit like you are simply beating up on the people who chose to vote > differently from you on this latest RFC.
It is clear to me and I get the feeling here, with Tyrael's thread and Stas arguments that this agreement is all of a sudden invalid. And that's where I so strongly disagree. If that's not the case, and after a 2nd thought, it is actually not the case, then we can just discard this whole thread and go back to code and proposals. I only find very disturbing to have to explain and argue so many times about that only because we have a edge case in a proposal (which is perfectly valid, that happens, show must go on). Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
