On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 23:46, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> I've been doing a horrible job at explaining myself if that's what you think
> I'm trying to do.
As I said before, I think the difficulty has been caused by presenting
a complete set of solutions to multiple problems at once, without
agreement
Good morning Zeev&al :)
Thanks you for this RFC. I think it is long due to get a status of
where we are, what we like to have and what we can improve. My
apologize for the long reply, and as I got a mention in this reply, I
felt the need to put my grain of salt in this discussion. I hope you
don't
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:02 PM Côme Chilliet wrote:
> Le mardi 5 février 2019, 11:53:01 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> > We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I would say that the way
> > virtually every other major Open Source project serves as a fairly good
> > proof point for my position
Le mardi 5 février 2019, 11:53:01 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I would say that the way
> virtually every other major Open Source project serves as a fairly good
> proof point for my position. In fact, even with the new eligible voting
> criteria, we'd
Le mardi 5 février 2019, 02:38:50 CET Stanislav Malyshev a écrit :
> Hi!
Hi!
> Do you imagine Linus
> asking a vote of all Linux users about how to implement a kernel driver
> and implementing it only in a way that majority of Linux users approves?
Not sure that would be so bad.
At least until
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:09 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:37 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> > meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> > explanation on why you ne
Hi!
> To me that is the purpose of voting, what you’re saying is like
> complaining that in a democracy old people with experience has the
> same voting power than young ones.
To be clear, PHP user community is not a democracy, neither we want to
be. In democracy, every person (marginal cases lik
Hi again,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:37 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> explanation on why you need one - enough to convince one of the folks
> with admin rights on m
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:07 AM Côme Chilliet wrote:
> Le mardi 5 février 2019, 10:36:48 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> > Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> > meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> > explanation on why you need one - en
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Reading the RFC, here's my thoughts:
>
Thanks for the detailed response!
> 1. Do we really need different classification of changes? I think having
> one single vote procedure would have larger benefit, and RFC that fails
> 2/
This is truly developer way. :-)
On Feb 5, 2019 01:10, "Christoph M. Becker" wrote:
>
> On 04.02.2019 at 23:59, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>
> > Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield
> > :
> >
> >> To answer both you and Sanislav here together, as he raised a similar
> >> poi
Le mardi 5 février 2019, 10:36:48 CET Zeev Suraski a écrit :
> Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> explanation on why you need one - enough to convince one of the folks
> with admin rights on master
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrey Andreev
> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:18 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Dan Ackroyd ; PHP internals
>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
>
> You keep saying that, but it hasn'
Hi again,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:32 AM Kris Craig wrote:
> Stripping any existing contributors of our voting rights is a non-starter for
> me, period. Any changes must not be applied retroactively, as that would
> just lead to all kinds of problems and severe animosity/drama.
>
> The eligibi
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019, 7:18 PM Andrey Andreev Hi,
>
> I was avoiding this, but since the discussion has already turned into
> all about who gets to vote, I might as well ...
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > the barrier to obtaining a vote is ridiculously low.
>
> You keep
Hi,
I was avoiding this, but since the discussion has already turned into
all about who gets to vote, I might as well ...
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> the barrier to obtaining a vote is ridiculously low.
You keep saying that, but it hasn't been explained how it is so.
I
Den tir. 5. feb. 2019 kl. 02.22 skrev Kalle Sommer Nielsen :
> I agree with that as long as it is without the PHP Project boundaries,
s/without/within
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
ka...@php.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.n
Den tir. 5. feb. 2019 kl. 02.10 skrev Christoph M. Becker :
> In my opinion, the question “who is eligible to vote” is closely tied to
> the RFC *at hand*. For instance, str_begins() wouldn't be much of a
> maintainance burden, and whether it should be included into the PHP core
> could very well
On 04.02.2019 at 23:59, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield :
>
>> To answer both you and Sanislav here together, as he raised a similar point,
>> that presumes that 100% of the "invited outsiders" vote on every RFC. I
>> think
>> that is unlikely,
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Ackroyd
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 10:24 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
>
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 06:19, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
>
Den søn. 3. feb. 2019 kl. 19.29 skrev Larry Garfield :
>
> It's not absurd, it's a matter of degrees. As Zeev noted in a later email,
> the current voting RFC already calls for some voting-level input from "major
> customers", but not a controlling vote.
> To use hyperbolic examples:
>
> Would add
Hello and thanks for the RFC.
I think the Eligible Voters Section is too complex to be
addressed/bundled in this RFC. I think it deserves another RFC.
Most discussions here are rightfully about this section. To add my opinion:
* I don't understand the special treatment for PHP-FIG. This grou
Hi!
> What's the threshold of absurdity here? That we could debate. However, it
> is
> not 0. (I'd personally put it in the 10-20 range, bearing in mind that not
> all of them would vote all the time anyway, just like core developers, but
> others may feel differently.)
I am not sure defin
Hi!
Reading the RFC, here's my thoughts:
1. Do we really need different classification of changes? I think having
one single vote procedure would have larger benefit, and RFC that fails
2/3 requirement would be suspect anyway. RFCs can have parts - "whether
we do it" and "how exactly we do it" -
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 06:19, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:14 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>> Hi Zeev,
>>
>> Please can you very clearly state what problem you are trying to solve
>> by changing the rules about who can vote.
>
> Fair enough, I've heard that question from several other
On Friday, February 1, 2019 7:11:40 PM CST Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Den fre. 1. feb. 2019 kl. 02.42 skrev Larry Garfield
> > > So I would support a mechanism of some sort to give formal voting
rights
> > to
> > non-internals-C-developers who are still significant-PHP-contributors, as
> >
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:14 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > >
> > > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> > many of the issues that have plagued our RFC pro
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:14 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
>
> Hi Zeev,
>
>
On Sa, 2019-02-02 at 01:20 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> So, how do we identify those who are currently the most contributory?
> Commits mostly, though we can't ignore other qualities. In a 2003
> paper[1], Scacchi (UC Irvine) defined a F/OSS meritocracy pyramid in
> which those at the top had the
On 2.02.19 г. 3:41 ч., Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Do, 2019-01-31 at 14:28 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
2. Core developers are defined as the top 13 committers within the
period of two years since voting began. A core developer is a de
facto
community member, but caucuses as a core
Hi!
> 1) Please see my earlier message. The way FIG is structured, one could
> extend
> voting rights to project representatives, the core committee, both, or
> neither. The core committee is 12 people. Project reps are ~36 currently.
> Adding 12 people to the voting pool would not "effect
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:41 PM Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Do, 2019-01-31 at 14:28 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> >
> >2. Core developers are defined as the top 13 committers within the
> >period of two years since voting began. A core developer is a de
> > facto
> >community member
On Do, 2019-01-31 at 14:28 -0500, Bishop Bettini wrote:
>
> 2. Core developers are defined as the top 13 committers within the
> period of two years since voting began. A core developer is a de
> facto
> community member, but caucuses as a core developer.
How do you define "top 13 commit
Den fre. 1. feb. 2019 kl. 02.42 skrev Larry Garfield :
> Disclosure: I am a long-time member of PHP-FIG, but I am NOT speaking on
> behalf of FIG in this post, only for myself.
>
> As Zeev noted, I think it's very good to have some mechanism for formal
> involvement from people who aren't C coders.
Hi,
Regarding the definitions of what constitutes a Change, a Packaging
Decision and an Implementation Decision, I think it does a better job than
the current voting RFC but IMHO it still is over-complicated. Trying to
specify which changes are which just for the sake of allowing some things
to pa
On 01/02/2019 18:13, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> btw, you seem to have completely overlooked extension maintainers from
> your list of people who should have a vote on PHP internals.
And those who have involved themselves in writing tests for PHP through
events like TestFests, and who probably have more
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:44, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve many
> of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
Hi Zeev,
Please can you very clearly state what problem you are trying
All,
I have managed to avoid commenting on PHP-FIG since the group was dissolved,
then re-constituted under the same name, without my participation as one of its
original founding members.
However, I cannot let this phrasing pass:
On Feb 1, 2019, at 10:30, Larry Garfield wrote:
> FIG today i
On Friday, February 1, 2019 2:34:12 AM CST Kris Craig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stanislav Malyshev
>
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I haven't fully read the RFC yet, so I'll come back with more formed
> > opinion about it probably, but wanted to comment about a couple of
> >
> > point
On 01/02/2019 08:34, Kris Craig wrote:
The more I think about this, the less I like it. According to the page
linked to from the RFC, there are 51 current FIG members who would gain a
vote. So this RFC would strip most contributers of their voting rights
(including me), while simultaneously add
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I haven't fully read the RFC yet, so I'll come back with more formed
> opinion about it probably, but wanted to comment about a couple of
> points here:
>
> > Reasoning: If somebody is out of the project for 10 years they probab
Hi!
I haven't fully read the RFC yet, so I'll come back with more formed
opinion about it probably, but wanted to comment about a couple of
points here:
> Reasoning: If somebody is out of the project for 10 years they probably
> lost track on how the language and needs evolved and just voting sin
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:17:02 PM CST Chase Peeler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Zeev
> > >
> > > Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> > > > Without furthe
Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 20.17 skrev Chase Peeler :
> I don't know if there is a good way to implement it, but I definitely think
> there is value in some sort of voice being given to those that use PHP to
> build things, but don't contribute to the actual source.
>
> I think it's important, th
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:07 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:53 PM Kris Craig wrote:
>
> > I think you may be over-reaching a bit on the eligible voters part. Keep
> > in mind that all those who would be affected would still be able to vote
> on
> > this RFC. I think it's to
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Zeev
> >
> > Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> > >
> > > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> > many of the issu
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi Zeev
>
> Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> >
> > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced i
On Do, 2019-01-31 at 15:44 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively
> solve many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it
> was hastily introduced in 2011:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2019
>
Being mostly outside I wonder
Hi Kris
Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 18.03 skrev Kris Craig :
> Given how complex and controversial this question of restricting who can vote
> is, I propose that it be moved to its own RFC instead of being bundled with
> this one. It would certainly boost likelihood of passage, if nothing else,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 7:58 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen Hi Zeev
>
> Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> >
> > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> many of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
> >
Hi Zeev
Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
>
> Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve many
> of the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily
> introduced in 2011:
>
>
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2019
I wholeheartedly
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:53 PM Kris Craig wrote:
> I think you may be over-reaching a bit on the eligible voters part. Keep
> in mind that all those who would be affected would still be able to vote on
> this RFC. I think it's too restrictive on that part.
>
I realized that this part of the R
I think you may be over-reaching a bit on the eligible voters part. Keep
in mind that all those who would be affected would still be able to vote on
this RFC. I think it's too restrictive on that part.
Also, why does FIG get special treatment?
--Kris
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 5:44 AM Zeev Suraski
Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve many of
the issues that have plagued our RFC process since it was hastily introduced in
2011:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting2019
Emphasis on ‘attempting’. I’m sure there are still a lot of holes in it that
should be
54 matches
Mail list logo
