Levi Morrison wrote:
>> Whatever you want to improve, please consider that the PHP wiki is
>> driven by DokuWiki which needs to get updated from time to time (lately
>> there have been two updates every year[1]; this is not accounting any
>> necessary updates to DokuWiki plugins). These updates s
> Whatever you want to improve, please consider that the PHP wiki is
> driven by DokuWiki which needs to get updated from time to time (lately
> there have been two updates every year[1]; this is not accounting any
> necessary updates to DokuWiki plugins). These updates seem to be
> painful alread
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Christoph Becker wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> However, as of today, you are the blocking point when it comes to
>> improve the wiki RFCs, registration and voting areas.And this is
>> really becoming a problem. I am not talking about irregularities and
>> the l
Pierre Joye wrote:
> However, as of today, you are the blocking point when it comes to
> improve the wiki RFCs, registration and voting areas.And this is
> really becoming a problem. I am not talking about irregularities and
> the likes and I agree that it may not be fair to start bitching about
>
On Mar 19, 2015 5:20 AM, "Hannes Magnusson"
wrote:
>
> I have asked you before to stop harassing me, and stop spreading these
> lies and defamation before.
> Furthermore I have asked you to stop emailing all together.
>
> I have asked you very politely several times before.
>
> Please refrain for
I have asked you before to stop harassing me, and stop spreading these
lies and defamation before.
Furthermore I have asked you to stop emailing all together.
I have asked you very politely several times before.
Please refrain for talking about me or to me ever again. I will take
legal actions if
hi,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Sebastian B.-Hagensen
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2015-03-17 20:55 GMT+01:00 Hannes Magnusson :
>>> If you need to confirm the statistics, or gather more background data,
>>> then feel free to contact me pr
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Sebastian B.-Hagensen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-03-17 20:55 GMT+01:00 Hannes Magnusson :
>> If you need to confirm the statistics, or gather more background data,
>> then feel free to contact me privately, off the list, and I'll get you
>> the account approval dates (k
Hi,
2015-03-17 20:55 GMT+01:00 Hannes Magnusson :
> If you need to confirm the statistics, or gather more background data,
> then feel free to contact me privately, off the list, and I'll get you
> the account approval dates (karma and/or wiki).
While I agree that the issue at hand was not presen
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went
On 16.03.2015 01:08, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On 15/03/2015 22:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue
writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Do you know who Kris
> On 16.03.2015, at 15:03, Kristian Köhntopp wrote:
>
> That is me. And I voted no on a broken poposal.
And because some people asked, the kk account is not new.
I have been using PHP since about 1997/98, joining the community around the
times of the first PHP 3.0 beta-releases. Boris Erdmann
> On 15.03.2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> kk - no
That is me. And I voted no on a broken poposal.
K
--
Kristian Köhntopp http://google.com/+KristianKohntopp
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On 15 March 2015 at 15:23, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> >> now. There were a number of voters
2015.03.16. 4:18 ezt írta ("Philip Sturgeon" ):
>
> One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
> vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
> signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
>
> I'm not saying that happened,
Hi!
> One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
> vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
> signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
That makes a lot of sense, though I don't think we had much of this
issue. Fi
One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
I'm not saying that happened, but a simple rule saying "You cannot
vote on any RFC start
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> On 15/03/2015 22:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/p
On 15/03/2015 22:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the
p
On 15/03/2015 19:07, Derick Rethans wrote:
Rowan Collins schreef op 15 maart 2015 17:59:17
GMT+00:00:
On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
> > this:
> >
> > https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
>
> Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the
> proliferation of PHP? How
Hi!
> theory" cries despite Anthony's statement above. As I've already
> indicated, and being a Yes voter, I'm sort of dubious about even my
> own voting rights, and votes of my nature have previously been called
> out as a bad thing by people on both sides of the RFC.
If you think you're not inf
> -Original Message-
> From: Wim Godden [mailto:wim.god...@cu.be]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:30 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
>
>
> On 15/03/2015 20:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >>
Hi all,
Am 15.03.2015 um 15:19 schrieb Anthony Ferrara:
> ... There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize.
I wondered about who the people are that vote and how they "earned" the
right to do so. I think this kind of confusion could be avoided if
people.php.net would contain a little mor
Hi!
> voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling
> them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the
He's not calling them bad directly, he is calling them "irregularities",
singling them out and arguing that they are the reason the RFC is
currently does n
On 15/03/2015 20:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the proliferation
of PHP? How can you bring your
Hi!
> Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java. And to this
> misguided FUD post, that actively asks people to vote no, I can quite
> easily attribute a few more no votes of people that had never voted
> before...
I have seen many messages on the list which I personally consider very
wron
Hi!
> So consider that discussion open.
I guess this would have to happen sooner or later - sooner or later
somebody, when the vote doesn't go their way, would cry "who are all
these people? It can't be right they are all legit, there must be
something wrong". I'm not sure though where this discu
Hi,
On 15 March 2015 at 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they
> shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question
> around the voting practices.
I think folk should be cautious about linking the proximity of a
certain RFC t
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Matthew Leverton [mailto:lever...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. März 2015 20:46
> An: Anthony Ferrara
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Anthony
Can we please stop with this? It's damaging to the language and the
community.
I am a strong believer of STH, no surprise there, but I do not think this
thread should have
been created. Is the php voting process uncontrolled and chaotic with no
real count of voting
members? Hell yes.
This does no
> Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java
I think there are people who want to switch from Java to PHP, maybe they feel
easier with declare(strict...).
Also in the past, some companies switched from PHP to Java because they wanted
more strictness in their backend code.
I don't like dec
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>
...
>
> Something that I think we need to discuss as a group.
>
> I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
> this:
>
> https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Derick,
Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the proliferation
of PHP? How can you bring yourself to say he has no clue?
2015-03-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 Levi Morrison :
> > What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one
> > that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with
> > understanding.
>
> You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical
> language feature o
Rowan Collins schreef op 15 maart 2015 17:59:17
GMT+00:00:
>On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
>> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
>> decided to pull some stats.
>>
>> The fo
> What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one
> that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with
> understanding.
You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical
language feature over to someone not doing real development on the
langua
Hi Anthony,
I am zimt.
And yes, you are correct, i haven't voted before, infact, I've kept myself
out of all discussions for a long time - for my own reasons,
however after reading into your proposal, the discussion around it, I made
the decision to cast a vote against your RFC.
You can't just t
C'mon guys, vote didn't pass, it's time to do something about it and not
start conspiracy theories (or I will loose hope for humanity completely). I
happened to have a job-free next week, i've been saying for a long time now
that this has to be tackled differently and even layed down some thoughts
On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
dom - no
eliw - n
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 6:31 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Levi Morrison; Michael Wallner; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
>
> Literally
On 3/15/15 10:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> [...]
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
> [...]
> eliw - no
> [...]
> Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do
> not.
> [...]
> I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor th
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
>> *when* they got an account.
>
> None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email
> archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli - with whom
I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
*when* they got an account.
As you already said, there's no acceptation date on that site, but it
seems that new accounts are appended to the end of the list -
http://people.php.net/?page=33
Probably better than nothing.
> I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
> *when* they got an account.
None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email
archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli - with whom I discussed
the reasons he voted against the Coercive RFC - I
>>
>> Is there a way to check when someone got a php.net account/karma?
>>
>>
>> http://people.php.net
>>
>
> I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
> *when* they got an account.
Oh, sorry! I thought it reads something like “Account opened: Y-m-d” but that’s
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> On 15 03 2015, at 16:23, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>
> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote
On 15.03.2015 16:44, Pádraic Brady wrote:
>
> I don't think it's ridiculous in a separate thread around discussing
> voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling
> them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the
> current RFCs. Merely noting that their exis
Hi Michael,
On 15 March 2015 at 14:29, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you’re that good in counting, how
> many did not vote before STHv0.3?
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
I
> On 15 03 2015, at 16:23, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
>>> now. There were a number of voters
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
>> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
>> decided to pull some stats.
>>
>
> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
dom - no
eliw - no
kguest - yes
kk - no
nohn - no
oliver - yes
53 matches
Mail list logo
