On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 6:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > For there to be a veto, of the kind that anyone can actually use, it must > > be established somewhere. > > And that's what I am concerned about. Once we start assuming the RFC > process is not for solving technical questions for everything, we get > into this kind of rule lawyering and nitpicking into the texts which > never were intended to be able to serve as something that can work while > being base for rule-lawyering and nitpicking. It's not a constitution > (not that lawyers don't find all kinds of things all the time there that > were never written there either) and the fact that voting RFC or > whatever document is on wiki now does or does not have certain words in > there does not have any sacred meaning, because it wasn't even meant for > that. These are utilitarian documents which were written for specific > purposes, and should be understood within that context. And if they do > not match what we want to do now, they can and should be changed. > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com
Simple question for those that keep arguing that the RFC process is only applicable to a certain subset of issues: OK, so what's the alternative? If we wanted to make a structural or governance change to PHP, what is the process? If we really did feel there was a reason to make a fundamental change to the language (whatever that means), what is the process? If we wanted to change the RFC process, what is the process? If we don't have those, and want to set them up, what is the process for defining the process? --Larry Garfield -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
