On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 09:50, Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net> wrote: > > This was not a threat of any kind,
"If we need to pull rank with group@ here, we will." "I'm confident that if it ever came to that, I'll have the backing of group@, which is why I wrote what I wrote." Those are threats. You were threatening to have an ill-defined group of people force changes in how RFCs are carried out. Please don't make threats. And also don't make threats and then pretend you're not making threats. > Even without reading Stas's messages in detail - their length alone suggests "Their length alone." "Their _length alone_". This is why trying to force RFC authors to respond to every point is such a bad idea. It allows filibustering of RFCs by having people who are opposed to the RFC by bringing up voluminous complaints. This is described nicely in a video called "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People (And You Can Too)" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM which I recommend everyone watch. Zeev, both you and Stas seem to be making lots of noise due to some RFCs having been passed despite your objections. The whole reason voting for RFCs was introduced was so that progress could be made even when some community members objected to an RFC. If you want to change how the RFC process happens, to have a "long term stability committee" or something similar, please raise an RFC for it. But just making noise and threats on this list is completely non-productive. cheers Dan Ack -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
