Hi François, On 19 February 2015 at 23:13, François Laupretre <franc...@php.net> wrote: > I never asked anyone to abandon his work. I just asked to respect the rules. > What I told you first is that, while Sara did not resigned formally, I didn't > see why you could publish derived concurrent work from the RFC she was > currently owning (and I don't use reddit, sorry). > > Now, it is still not very clear to me whether we have one or two active RFCs > at this time... > > You will be surprised but I prefer the way you're dealing with Andrea's RFC, > because you are just taking over, orienting but not denaturing anything she > did, and that's fine, even if we don't fully agree. The reason I didn't > formally take over the RFC first is that I considered I would denature her > work and couldn't do that (while it would have brought me less problems, > finally).
As I understand it, Andrea left her RFC free to be reused, reopened and derived without any specific limitation. It would therefore appear that it would be possible for there to be 100 derived RFCs all owned by different people, i.e. nobody has an exclusive right to either the RFC text or the concept of scalar typehints insofar as I understand it. Nevertheless, 0.5 following 0.4 leads to certain obvious assumptions that for good or ill may be made in the absence of the full picture. This all sounds like a simple misunderstanding under exceptional circumstances. As I believe Sara noted before, she will work with either of the RFCs (yours or Anthony's) as it fits her own purposes, so it will boil down to whichever RFCs gets published in the end. There's one up. I assume yours will follow. That shall make two :). Paddy -- Pádraic Brady http://blog.astrumfutura.com http://www.survivethedeepend.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
