Stas, > Not can't, shouldn't be. And I don't see any reason why we should stop saying that.
Because it's a waste of everyone's time. The RFC process is the only one we have. > RFC process was not created to be sole governing body for PHP project and something that makes every vote mandatory for the whole project. I'm not sure exactly what this means. To clarify, I wasn't trying to impose anything new by changing the introduction, I was only trying to give a formal description of how the project actually does work, and what role the RFC process plays in that. I already conceded that my words were loose and I done a pretty poor job of doing that. > but if there's no consensus about some thing like project governance, then just holding a vote for two weeks in random point of time among those who happens to read the list at that time is not a good governance model. Your suggestion implies that *if* there was no consensus about how the project is governed that it would be our only option to continue without a way to resolve that question. In reality, there is a consensus about how the project is governed. Some contributors may be unhappy, and far too loud about expressing their opinions on this, but they are a small minority. The vast majority of contributors are quite happy to use the RFC process in all the ways we have been using it. Cheers Joe On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 09:52, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > > I'd like it if we could stop saying the RFC process can't be used for one > > thing or another, it's patently false. > > Not can't, shouldn't be. And I don't see any reason why we should stop > saying that. > > > To say it's not suitable for these things is a total nonsense, we already > > use it for these things. > > Contrary to popular belief, saying the magic word "nonsense" doesn't > actually prove anything and doesn't replace actual argument. > > RFC process was not created to be sole governing body for PHP project > and something that makes every vote mandatory for the whole project. If > there's a consensus about certain decision, sure, it can be confirmed by > a vote, but if there's no consensus about some thing like project > governance, then just holding a vote for two weeks in random point of > time among those who happens to read the list at that time is not a good > governance model. > > RFC process is fine for committing features because worst thing we > commit some bad code, and revert/amend it later. It's a bit dangerous > for deep language features since rolling that back would be hard. But I > do not think governing the project can be done in this way. Fortunately, > PHP project actually doesn't need a lot of "governing", but when the > need arises, just holding a two-week vote among whoever happens to read > the list in those two weeks - I don't think that would work very well. > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
