On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Philip, > > Shouldn't we be focusing on how this makes PHP better? And not nitpick >> about a percentage point or two? >> > > Well, this passed with 62.8%. Property accessors failed with 60.7%. The > target for acceptance is 66.6%. So 3.8% is enough to throw away, but 5.9% > isn't? > > I think the point of this discussion is that rules are rules for a reason. > You can't be high and holy and deny one RFC judiciously, and then hand-wave > and say the next RFC doesn't matter because the intention is there (or > whatever rationale is). > > Either we stick to the rules, or we throw them out and install a BDFL. > Either way, I don't care. I just think the current > they-sometimes-matter-depending-on-who-and-when-it-is-raised stance is > deeper than BS, it's dangerous and is actively turning away contributors > (as well as harming the project)… Hello Anthony, Good points. And the vague release/voting RFCs also contribute to this. And FWIW, I think PHP needs a BDFL, but we'll have to convince the one potential candidate to agree. :) Regards, Philip -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
