On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > > > > On 20 Jul 2014, at 00:26, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > > The poll is now open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6#vote > > > > > > Voting shall end in a week’s time on 2014-07-27. > > > > I’ve cancelled the vote because I don’t think the case for 6 is > > sufficiently fleshed out. The RFC is now massively imbalanced in > > favour of 7, which isn’t really fair to the 6 side, and I don’t think > > we can hold a vote while that’s still the case. > > > > Unfortunately I’m not terribly good at making such a case, so help in > > developing the 6 side would be appreciated. I won’t reopen the vote > > until the 6 side is sufficiently developed. > > Huh what? This is like you weren't happy with the way how the vote was > going so you cancelled it? What nonsense. > After the vote has been started the RFC was edited by Zeev in order to strengthen the case for PHP 7. There is nothing wrong with that, adding additional arguments to an RFC is perfectly fine by me. However at the same time a number of paragraphs were removed that were arguing for PHP 6, at least in part. The only thing that was left in "The case for PHP 6" was a single paragraph, of which half was really just an explanation of the general situation. Effectively the edits made the RFC text heavily biased. It's okay to edit an RFC to add arguments for your side, but I find it discourteous and disingenuous to remove arguments from the opposing side at the same time. As such I can understand Andrea's decision to close this vote until tempers had time to cool down and both sides had a chance to be fairly represented. Nikita
