On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:33 PM >> To: Zeev Suraski >> Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP Internals >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about >> >> this, everybody went by the "all votes must start by the 15th" >> >> interpretation that has been discussed in that thread. Do you think >> >> it's an accident that a whopping six RFC votes started today? It >> >> isn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please don't start reinterpreting things to fit your needs. I am >> >> personally totally fine with extending the PHP 7 timeline by say one >> >> month - but if we do that, let's make it official and applying to >> >> everyone, not just some particular RFC. I know for sure that there >> >> are a number of additional RFCs that would have been submitted for >> >> PHP 7 had anyone known that it'll be allowed. >> > >> > First off, this is Bob's interpretation which he brought up on Friday. >> > Yes, ideally I would have read the original text during the discussion >> > period and commented on it, but I didn't. I think the 3 month period >> > for implementation (that's mostly done) and testing gives a very >> > reasonable time period to absorb the most lax of interpretations. >> > >> > I think it would be a shame to delay the timeline for this, but I also >> > think it would be a shame for the timeline - that was *clearly* not >> > designed to create de-facto bias towards one RFC or the other - to do >> exactly that. >> > >> > Even if we were to push the timeline out by a bit, how do we do it? >> > An RFC with a minimum discussion period of two weeks and another week >> for a vote? >> > That kind of defeats the purpose. A gentlemen's agreement? Something >> else? >> > >> > Zeev >> > >> > -- >> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, >> > visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > >> >> "Even if we were to push the timeline out by a bit, how do we do it?" >> >> This is ~"My approach hasn't won yet, and instead of conceding default due >> to democracy in action, I would like to change the process. >> >> I am not insulting you. I am not attacking you. But this is some bizarre >> stuff >> that is more than sneaky, and you really need to stop. > > > Phil, > > Do you mind STOPPING TO TWIST THINGS TO FIT YOUR AGENDA, please? And no, > saying you don't insult me or attack me after doing exactly that does not > change anything. > > It's NIKITA that proposed this. It's BOB that proposed the lax (and very > reasonable) interpretation to the Mar 15 timeline. Why did you not 'not > insult' and 'not attack' them? Is it open season on Zeev only? > >> One RFC has won. Another RFC has lost. A third RFC is a backup plan and >> nothing more. > > None won and none lost as of yet. Are there some special rules for a backup > plan anywhere in the Voting RFC or the Timeline RFC that I missed? Or are > you allowed to make those up? How sneaky of you. And bizarre. But no > worries, I'm not insulting or attacking you! > > *THIS* is toxic. If Nikita brings up a point, I ask him to elaborate a bit, > and you jump on me (as you did numerous times over the last month) - this is > unacceptable. > > Zeev
I am sorry for hurting your feelings but you are being manipulative and I am not a fan of that. I have no agenda, I just want to see you put an end to this weird rule bending, definition changing, rule ignoring "convenient" interpretations of policies that stop Dual STH going through by any means possible. > Are there some special rules for a backup > plan anywhere in the Voting RFC or the Timeline RFC that I missed? Yeah Bob specifically said it would go to vote if Dual STH failed, so that makes it a backup plan. :) -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
