> Zeev,
>
> If I put it into vote until Sunday, we're breaking the voting process.
Which
> required an apt discussion phase which definitely isn't given when we
start
> Sunday.
Bob,
I do see it differently but obviously very much respect your position.
Why do I see it differently? The mandatory two week discussion period is
there to avoid a situation where there's not enough time to debate the
merit of the proposal, as well as to avoid 'stealth' RFCs where it's over
before some people even notice. Both of these elements aren't here. An
identical proposal has been debated in depth and from all possible
directions? Check. It's perhaps the most watched internals@ topic of all
times with zero chance for stealth RFCs? Check. There's not going to be
any new meaningful discussion over the next 10 days where something that
hasn't already been said will be said.
But again, I respect your position.
> Also. Your timeline RFC leaves a bit room for interpretation ("Line up"
> means? Put into discussion? Vote? Have votes all already accepted?) . If
> necessary, I'll rather push timeline a bit than breaking vote process.
Good point. Looks like I shouldn't be writing non-technical RFCs as
they're always more than a bit open for interpretation :) Or at least
internals@ needs to scrutinize them more. Either way, you're right that
technically we could say your RFC is very much 'lined up' right now,
before the Mar 15 deadline.
While I'd hate to prolong the timeline for a technicality like that, for
this specific case I think it's worth it - it's an extremely important
topic and we've been dealing with it for almost a decade. Also, the good
news is that it's unlikely to delay the 2nd milestone given that we have
implementations for all of the different options already.
Now, my key concern is that you're saying you'd put it to a vote only if
you see both other RFCs are failing. The Dual Mode RFC is hovering above
and below passing, and we have no way of knowing how many people who voted
in favor of the Dual Mode RFC would actually much rather vote for the
Basic one if it was available (we know of at least one, and actually two
if you count me - my guess is there are a lot more). What I think makes
sense is to do something similar to what I did & plan to do with the
Coercive STH RFC - put it up to a vote as soon as practical; If we see
that it's not passing, withdraw it. I'm very clearly on the record saying
that if the Dual Mode RFC remains the only viable alternative (besides not
having anything) - I'll not only change my vote to yes, but also encourage
everyone else that I can to do the same (which I do think could swing at
least some votes). If Anthony's right and there's no chance it'll pass -
no harm done, except for maybe we've lost a couple of weeks.
Thoughts?
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
