On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 03:16 +0100, Leigh wrote: > > > > I think everyone with the ability to vote should have to communicate > > their reasons behind their yes/no publicly on this mailing list for > > it to be valid. If you cannot describe in your own words why a > > proposal should or should not be accepted, why should your opinion > > be valid? > > > That's one of the reasons why I consider voting as default way wrong. > It might be a way to solve ties if a consensus can't be reached.
That's another good point, that I stand behind. I think f.e. the integer semantics RFC was contentious enough to warrant further discussion and see what could make other people to say "yes" as well. The current RFC process does not state anything about reflecting comments on the ML to have to be addressed before the RFC can even be put to vote. And I think, valid (technical) objects should be required to be addressed. > It is unclear what a "no" means. Might be a related to the patch the > design, a misunderstanding or due to a critical issue ... in the end > a vote creates "losers" with little feedback. > > But well, I'm saying this from day one of the voting. Yes. I am in that camp too. cheers, Derick
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
