On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2014 23:32, "Andrea Faulds" <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > > > On 20 Jul 2014, at 22:28, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > It also wasn’t really fair of me to start a vote when there wasn’t really > a case for 7, now that I think about it. I suppose that makes my later > decision hypocritical, but it does mean we’re in a better place now when we > have a second vote, as we have two cases. > > To sum it up: > > 6 would be the logical number for the next major version, that's just a > fact. > I would go with it. But I and probably most others who would go with 6 > wouldn't really be hurt if we went with 7. > > On the other hand there would be quite some people hurt if we went with 6. > So, maybe it's just me, but there seems to only be a "case" for 7. > > Let's think about the people, not only numbers and facts. We often forget > about that when "just" answering mails. > > Cheers, > Mike > Andrea and Zeev, If it's not too much trouble, could you both keep us updated on this thread with regard to your progress (or lack thereof) in getting the RFC to a state that both of you are in agreement on? I think part of the problem last time was that the discussion fizzled, people forgot about it and moved on to other things, then suddenly it sprang back up to a vote. I know that added to the initial confusion on my part, at least. So even if you've made no progress, please take a moment at least once a week or so to update this thread with your status. It's kinda an accountability booster, as well. And Andrea, though according to the bylaws you can start the vote whenever you want, please do me a favor and refrain from doing so until Zeev says his part is ready. We can always put pressure on him and ultimately find someone else to do it if he takes *too* long, but as he pointed out and I think rightly so, there's no urgency at the moment so we can afford a little bit of foot-dragging if need be. Oh and please feel free to tell me to butt-out at any time. =) --Kris
