> Am 13.03.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com>: > > Maybe I was naïve, but I thought I had a better way to make both weak & > strict camps happy, instead of just ignoring the strict camp altogether. > While there was some opposition to it - it mostly came from the main > proponents of the Strict camp, and, well, you :) Clearly right now it seems > that not a lot of people bought into the coercive approach, and while I hope > it can be turned around - I realize the chances for that happening aren't > stellar. Given we can go to a vote on Bob's RFC tomorrow without having to > delay the PHP 7 timeline, I don't see strong reasons not to do it, and put > to rest any theories about what might have happened if v0.1 ever went for a > vote. > > Zeev
I won't go into vote tomorrow. Given that we already discussed that proposal a lot a few months ago (Andreas v1), we can go for a discussion phase a bit shorter (like 10 days total), but I won't put a new RFC into vote tomorrow. Especially as it's still being heavily discussed. Also, this vote is just valid in case where other votes fail - so we actually don't *compete* with Anthonys RFC. It doesn't affect the voting period of Anthonys RFC. We can have the vote still going on a few days after both RFCs failed. This RFC is only about the common part of both RFCs. Bob @Guilherme: I intend to put it into vote, yes.
