Dan Ackroyd wrote on 19/03/2015 18:11:
Rowan wrote:
>you should pause, make a cup of tea, and redraft the e-mail.
That was the redrafted version.
And yet it still accused another contributor of "being dumb", and
demanded they have access revoked. That is not a respectful or
proportional response to the situation.
The edits to the RFC were made two weeks ago. In Francois' defence he
himself alerted the list to the changes. But the unapproved editing
also meant that if there was someone else who was concerned about the
BC break, they might not have raised an RFC to revert the RFC, before
the cut off time for RFCs. This is one of the reasons why someone
editing the text of a passed RFC is utterly unacceptable.
Anyone knowledgeable enough about the process to raise such an RFC
would, at worst, have expressed confusion about the validity of the
edit. Note that the text of the vote remains "Yes to replace E_NOTICE
with E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, No for no change." so it's kind of obvious
that's what was agreed to. There is no inline editing of the text to
make it look like this was always the case, and the wiki provides full
history to anyone who cares to check.
Again, I agree that editing the RFC was wrong here, but I think a
"please don't do this again" would have been sufficient.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
