ctively engaging in discussion
making concious decisions, rather than blindly giving a vote and ignoring
the rest of the world.
Its a positive thing if people discuss (and are able to change) during the
voting period, I don't see why we would want to get rid of this.
regards,
PP
--
Pe
n,
and i refuse to believe that we are at that point.
> I disagree, I think it is important to know who voted for what in the
> end. Some accountability is good.
>
> That. times two.
regards,
PP
--
Peter Petermann
ProtonMail: ppeterm...@protonmail.com (encrypted / based in .ch)
Emai
l-mode vote, where a hand full of
us old-guys stood in conflict with a lot of the newer guys, including
Anthonys "voting irregularities" mail, and i can see how a vote on who
would be in the "response team" would swing, and how the vague code of
conduct would be used afterwards.
a
more clean and intuitive language.
However, that would be a BC breaking change, so not for a 7.1. So my
suggestion would be to put this to sleep, live with what we have, and
improve (by removing this from arrays) with the next major.
best regards,
PP
--
Peter Petermann
ProtonMail: ppeterm...@p
Ack
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Peter Petermann
ProtonMail: ppeterm...@protonmail.com (encrypted / based in .ch)
Email: ppeterman...@gmail.com - get my public PGP key f
ic binding of variables creates a lot
*less* clear and maintainable code, easy to be misunderstood and prone for
mistakes.
Which to me means the Proposal is actually doing the opposite of what it
claims to improve.
hence, i voted against it.
regards,
Peter Petermann
isely this purpose:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/libsodium
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Arciszewski
> Chief Development Officer
> Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com>
>
--
Peter Petermann
Email: ppeterman...@gmail.com - get my public PGP key from SKS Keyservers
PGP Key:
http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x0E6DBD675836A5C7
On March 16, 2015 11:10:41 PM GMT+01:00, Pierre Joye
wrote:
>On Mar 17, 2015 7:05 AM, "Peter Petermann"
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 16, 2015 2:32:39 PM GMT+01:00, Pascal Chevrel <
>pascal.chev...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >It&#
On March 16, 2015 2:32:39 PM GMT+01:00, Pascal Chevrel
wrote:
>It's too late, Bob's Basic STH missed the schedule for PHP 7, it was
>proposed way too late and the coercive STH RFC has just zero chance to
>pass, it's too much of a BC break for everybody. The dual mode STH is
>the only chance
't lead anywhere. And if this is really about the
voting practise, why is the numbers on what it would do with your RFC to
ignore the oldtimers relevant?
regards,
Peter Petermann
2015-03-15 15:19 GMT+01:00 Anthony Ferrara :
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of th
10 matches
Mail list logo
