Hi! > No. I will be willing to cut scope overall to cut how much it tackles > in the first swing, but I strongly believe that there needs to be some > sort of non-public resolution process defined.
I agree, non-public CRT as part of the proposal seems fine. The punitive action is a bit more tricky, and I would propose to split it in another RFC and in this RFC to say just that CRT may recommend further punitive action to the community, as described by further RFCs, and move the whole process thing (which now seems to be the bulk of the RFC by volume) to it. I think separating values from process would make finding consensus easier and also make it easier to consume in the future for people that aren't very interested in the intricate details of how we vote. I think those are two topics which can be discussed separately and the former has much more consensus than the latter. > Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers > have received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making > any of those attacks public (drawing more attention to them). In Then, by definition, we could not look at their level :) I am sorry you've been attacked, but if it's not public we really can't look at them. > The only way to know for sure would be to hold a vote (preferably a > blind one, but that's not really on the table). I don't believe the I can check over the weekend if I can make a patch that allows anonymous votes on wiki, based on that old patch here https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/1/files. It has to be modified to be configurable, of course, but that doesn't look impossible, at least before I know what I'm talking about :) -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
