On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Philip Sturgeon <pjsturg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >
Hello, if Zeev didn't want to make Dual STH go through by any means possible, he could have just retracted his RFC few hours ago when the Dual STH wasn't passing, effectively ending both RFCs as not passing, given I understand the voting process correctly. (Sure, it would be a textbook example of a so-called "dick move", but that's not the point.) If you realize this (in combination with the statement that if everything else fails, he'll go with the Dual one, even if he disagrees with it, so the end users at least have SOME type hints in PHP 7.0), then you'll probably see all the attempts to bring another competing RFC as an honest attempt at making the language better by bringing another look on STHs to vote on, and not as pushing some agenda. Or at least that's my point of view. Regards Pavel Kouril -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
