Hey internals :)

As there doesn't seem to be any further discussion regarding my RFC,
I've opened the vote:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote

Nikita

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Ugh I hate to throw a POO into this, but....

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hey internals :)
>
> As there doesn't seem to be any further discussion regarding my RFC,
> I've opened the vote:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote
>
> Nikita
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
"There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week."

(from http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting)

From what I can tell, you first created the topic on this 6 days ago. Even
if this didn't touch the language (which I think it does), voting would not
be permissible yet.

For the record, I do plan to vote yes on this and I think the voting rules
should be amended to allow for sooner voting if discussion has ended. But
until such amendments are made, are we really comfortable setting a
precedent of just ignoring the policy whenever it proves inconvenient? I
know I've been a bit of a lightning rod recently but I really think we
should make a decision on how we want to handle this. Personally, I'm a
big fan of having consistent procedures and defined parameters. But if
we're going to treat the voting RFC as binding or non-binding, I just think
we should overtly express a collective position on that here.

I'll refrain from voting on this until other people have had a chance to
weigh-in on this concern. I think we basically have three choices: Cancel
the vote on this RFC and wait until the 2 weeks have passed, come to a
decision that the rules in the voting RFC are non-binding, *or *(and this
would be my preference) let it slide this time with the understanding that
we'll add clarifying language to the voting procedure in the forseeable
future.


.....And in the interest of making people not want to murder me and feed my
entrails to a pack of wild ferrets, I'll shut up now. ;)

--Kris

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ugh I hate to throw a POO into this, but....
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hey internals :)
>>
>> As there doesn't seem to be any further discussion regarding my RFC,
>> I've opened the vote:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote
>>
>> Nikita
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>
> "There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week."
>
> (from http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting)
>
> From what I can tell, you first created the topic on this 6 days ago.  Even
> if this didn't touch the language (which I think it does), voting would not
> be permissible yet.
>
> For the record, I do plan to vote yes on this and I think the voting rules
> should be amended to allow for sooner voting if discussion has ended.  But
> until such amendments are made, are we really comfortable setting a
> precedent of just ignoring the policy whenever it proves inconvenient?  I
> know I've been a bit of a lightning rod recently but I really think we
> should make a decision on how we want to handle this.  Personally, I'm a big
> fan of having consistent procedures and defined parameters.  But if we're
> going to treat the voting RFC as binding or non-binding, I just think we
> should overtly express a collective position on that here.
>
> I'll refrain from voting on this until other people have had a chance to
> weigh-in on this concern.  I think we basically have three choices:  Cancel
> the vote on this RFC and wait until the 2 weeks have passed, come to a
> decision that the rules in the voting RFC are non-binding, or (and this
> would be my preference) let it slide this time with the understanding that
> we'll add clarifying language to the voting procedure in the forseeable
> future.
>
>
> ....And in the interest of making people not want to murder me and feed my
> entrails to a pack of wild ferrets, I'll shut up now.  ;)

I've asked about this on IRC and it seems like there is no problem
opening the vote now. Quoting:

"The purpose of the waiting period is to allow time for discussion
instead of rushing things before someone can find a problem. The
discussion having died and this being a simple change, I don't see the
problem with opening the vote now. Only a strict formalist like Kris
would interpret rules while ignoring their purpose."

Thanks,
Nikita

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

hi,

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've asked about this on IRC and it seems like there is no problem
> opening the vote now. Quoting:
>
> "The purpose of the waiting period is to allow time for discussion
> instead of rushing things before someone can find a problem. The
> discussion having died and this being a simple change, I don't see the
> problem with opening the vote now. Only a strict formalist like Kris
> would interpret rules while ignoring their purpose."

Whoever answered that is wrong in many ways, let alone the pointless
presonal comments, which has nothing to do on this list.

The point of the two weeks delay is to give anyone a chance to get in
the discussions. Many of us are not always full time monitoring the
mailing lists for all possible topics. Two weeks were and are still
seen as a reasonable timeframe to consider a discussion as over.

Please respect it, and it is not about being too restrictive or process fanatic.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> "There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week."

Now already more than two weeks passed since the RFC announcement, so
lets say that the vote starts *now*.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote

Nikita

PS: As there was no discussion between my initial vote announcement
and this one, I didn't see a reason to reset the vote.

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
> > language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
> > Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a
> week."
>
> Now already more than two weeks passed since the RFC announcement, so
> lets say that the vote starts *now*.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote
>
> Nikita
>
> PS: As there was no discussion between my initial vote announcement
> and this one, I didn't see a reason to reset the vote.
>

Ok, I think that's good enough this time. In the future, please respect
the process and wait the full two weeks so that everyone has a chance to
review your proposal. So long as we keep that in mind moving forward, I
withdraw my objection. =)

--Kris

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
>> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
>> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week."
>
> Now already more than two weeks passed since the RFC announcement, so
> lets say that the vote starts *now*.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote

vote for 5.4 or vote for trunk?

thanks
>
> Nikita
>
> PS: As there was no discussion between my initial vote announcement
> and this one, I didn't see a reason to reset the vote.
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>



--
Laruence  Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Laruence <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
>>> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
>>> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week."
>>
>> Now already more than two weeks passed since the RFC announcement, so
>> lets say that the vote starts *now*.
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote
>
> vote for 5.4 or vote for trunk?
>
> thanks
For trunk :) I don't think one can do language additions to 5.4.

Nikita

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Laruence <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
>>>> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required..
>>>> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week."
>>>
>>> Now already more than two weeks passed since the RFC announcement, so
>>> lets say that the vote starts *now*.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote
>>
>> vote for 5.4 or vote for trunk?
>>
>> thanks
> For trunk :) I don't think one can do language additions to 5.4.
okey, then it will be "yes" :)
>
> Nikita



--
Laruence  Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php