Hi Andrea,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Nikita Popov wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>> I'm definitely in favor of requiring a 2/3 majority in all cases. An RFC
>> that passes with 51:50 votes is clearly not an RFC that a consensus
Hi Anatol,
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Anatol Belski wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: yohg...@gmail.com [mailto:yohg...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yasuo
>> Ohgaki
>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:13 AM
>> To: Anatol Belski
>> Cc: php-...@lists.php.net
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-CVS
Hi Nikita,
Nikita Popov wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
I'm definitely in favor of requiring a 2/3 majority in all cases. An RFC
that passes with 51:50 votes is clearly not an RFC that a consensus exists
on. On the contrary, it indicates a very controversial change
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The vote on the OpenSSL AEAD RFC[1] has made me question our current RFC
> process again. Under the Voting RFC[2], "Language changes" (in practice,
> changes to syntax and semantics) require at least a 2/3 majority to pass
>
Hi Andrea,
On 30 Jan 2016 21:04, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
>
> Jakub Zelenka wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Jan 2016 17:35, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> The vote on the OpenSSL AEAD RFC[1] has made me question our current RFC
>>
>> process again. Under the Voting RFC[
On 30 Jan 2016 19:37, "Joe Constant" wrote:
>
> >>P.S. Please don't top post... ;)
> I'm not trying to thread hijack. Just trying to add to the discussion.
The ops post was in regards to RFCs passing to easily. My contention with
the low voter turnout is in line (or at least intended to be in line
Hi Jakub,
Jakub Zelenka wrote:
On 30 Jan 2016 17:35, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
Hi everyone,
The vote on the OpenSSL AEAD RFC[1] has made me question our current RFC
process again. Under the Voting RFC[2], "Language changes" (in practice,
changes to syntax and semantics) require at least a 2/3
>>P.S. Please don't top post... ;)
I'm not trying to thread hijack. Just trying to add to the discussion. The ops
post was in regards to RFCs passing to easily. My contention with the low voter
turnout is in line (or at least intended to be in line) with that.
>> It's often a specific feature f
On 30 Jan 2016 18:07, "Joe Constant" wrote:
>
> As someone who has never participated with intervals before and only just
recently subscribed to the list, I would like to see a minimum percentage
of voting members participating in a vote for something to pass. In my
interpretation of the current r
On 30 Jan 2016 17:35, "Andrea Faulds" wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> The vote on the OpenSSL AEAD RFC[1] has made me question our current RFC
process again. Under the Voting RFC[2], "Language changes" (in practice,
changes to syntax and semantics) require at least a 2/3 majority to pass
when they com
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The vote on the OpenSSL AEAD RFC[1] has made me question our current RFC
> process again. Under the Voting RFC[2], "Language changes" (in practice,
> changes to syntax and semantics) require at least a 2/3 majority to pass
>
As someone who has never participated with intervals before and only just
recently subscribed to the list, I would like to see a minimum percentage of
voting members participating in a vote for something to pass. In my
interpretation of the current rules, a measure could pass with only 3 votes
Hi everyone,
The vote on the OpenSSL AEAD RFC[1] has made me question our current RFC
process again. Under the Voting RFC[2], "Language changes" (in practice,
changes to syntax and semantics) require at least a 2/3 majority to pass
when they come to a vote, whereas changes that don't fall unde
Hi all,
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> I would like to restart better session management for PHP 7.1.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/precise_session_management
>
> Although this RFC targets PHP 7.1, new session management
> could be applied to older releases also if majority
Hi Yasuo,
> -Original Message-
> From: yohg...@gmail.com [mailto:yohg...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yasuo
> Ohgaki
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:13 AM
> To: Anatol Belski
> Cc: php-...@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: fix leak in 5.6: ext/session/mod_files.c
>
> On
15 matches
Mail list logo
