On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > On 21 ביול 2014, at 00:29, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Again this was mainly me replacing the not-so-convincing case for PHP > 7 (that's how these two paragraphs were referred to when they were > added, after my complaints about the RFC being one sided PHP 6 only, > you can check the archives) with a more convincing one. But I'm of > course fine with them being re-added if the proponents of 6 it helps > illustrate the case. > > I do think that it was a bit problematic that when I asked to restart > the vote it was rejected, but as the vote leaned heavily towards 7 (it > was 25 to 15 right before it was stopped, with 7 gaining very rapidly) > - it was done. But, I don't view it as a huge deal. > > > 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. > > As I said weeks ago, I think we need the best case for 6 and the best > case for 7, and put it up for a vote. I would appreciate it if we > didn't wait indefinitely for that, after spending much of my morning > getting shouted at for frantically typing this RFC up instead of > getting my daughters to kindergarten :) > > Zeev > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I feel compelled to voice just how extremely inappropriate it seems to me to delete the other side's argument on an RFC without any consultation. What I proposed was that Zeev and maintain the 7 argument and Andrea maintain the 6 argument. This effectively smells like blatant tampering to me. If Zeev says it was accidental, I'd be willing the to give him the benefit of the doubt and let that be the end of it, though it still troubles me that this happened. Hopefully, it will never happen again.
That said, I agree 100% that the vote should have been cancelled. Whether it was accidental or not, Zeev's unilateral gutting of the pro-6 argument contaminated the whole process and rendered any subsequent vote results unreliable. The only sensible and fair recourse at that point was to clear all votes, fix the RFC, then start the vote process over. She didn't do it because she didn't like the results. She did it because the RFC had been tampered with in such a manner as to likely influence the voting. Given Zeev's current situation, I think we should grant his request for a delay in voting, especially since we had to start over, anyway. There's no rush and I think it's important that we get this right, given the passion there seems to be on both sides of this particular debate. I would also ask that Andrea do one final read-thru of the RFC before putting it to vote just to make sure there haven't been any new unexpected edits, and that everyone agree not to alter the RFC's contents (namely the arguments) once voting has begun. That should be a universal rule with RFCs, anyway, I think. --Kris
