Truth be told that might just be a record for number of no votes in a 10 minutes window! :) Also I thought this was all about elephants ...
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > Stelian, > > Respectfully, I think internals@ is being just a bit too uptight here. > First, I did ask Bob before doing this, and while he said he thought it > wasn't a good idea (mostly because of feedback such as yours) - he didn't > 'block' me. > > Secondly, can we all relax a bit with the rules, RFCs, legalese and what's > allowed and not allowed to do? It's a simple POLL. I'm not abusing > anything, I'm not pretending it replaces the vote and I actually know > there'd be at least some people that won't vote in the same way that they > would in case Basic really comes up for a vote. It's to gauge the waters, > nothing more, and nothing less. > > Last, it's completely identical to me asking on the list how people would > vote in case Bob's RFC became available for a vote. Except it's a lot > easier to track and much more likely to get a large number of responses. > > Let's not make an elephant out of a mouse. FWIW, so far I'm getting > excellent cooperation from the Strict campers on this unofficial poll :) > > Zeev > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: stelian.mocan...@gmail.com [mailto:stelian.mocan...@gmail.com] > > On Behalf Of Stelian Mocanita > > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:11 PM > > To: Zeev Suraski > > Cc: PHP internals > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Basic STH - status & unofficial poll > > > > Now you are just pushing the limits and doing things your way. Bob > clearly > > stated he does not want a vote and you want with an "unofficial poll"? > > > > You need to learn to let things go their course and not always push > > matters > > your way. I do not see how you can pull this move yet still be offended > > when > > people call you out on political moves. > > > > I hereby kindly ask you to retract this "unofficial poll" and let things > > go their > > way, whatever they might be. > > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > First, I decided not to propose Basic STH under my name, despite > the > > fact I > > think that not committing to put it to a vote adds unneeded risk > for > > delivering STH in PHP 7.0. Whether or not it’s put to a vote will > be up > > to > > Bob. > > > > > > > > Secondly, I do want to attempt to understand what will happen if & > > when the > > Basic STH RFC goes to a vote at some later point in the future > (which > > according to Bob, will happen if the Dual Mode RFC fails). If I > see > > that > > Basic STH is going to fail, I’ll change my vote to be in favor of > the > > Dual > > Mode STH RFC, call upon everyone to do the same, and retract my > > Coercive > > mode RFC. > > > > > > > > This unofficial-non-RFC poll is here: > > wiki.php.net/notrfc/scalar_type_hints > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Zeev > > > > >
