Re: A call for help (urgent)
On Sat, May 17, 2014 13:13, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> No, you're watching the Voting RFC going haywire.
>
>
> It's the second time we have an RFC that deals with internal
> implementation as opposed to features and functions, something the RFC
> process was never designed to do. And it appears to be failing, much like
> it almost failed the last time around.
>
> Last time it happened I raised the hope that non-engine contributors
> will refrain from placing votes on such RFCs, we may need to (try and)
> formalize it.
>
> Zeev
>
>
>
>> On 17 במאי 2014, at 14:02, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 12:53, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In case there's any chance people lost track in the noise:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please, please - vote No on
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next#vote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We're in an unprecedented situation where almost all of the code
>>> contributors to the engine are against a patch that is being forced on
>>> them for no reason, negates months of hard work performed to get us
>>> phpng, and is somehow enjoying a majority (almost exclusively from
>>> people who are not engine contributors).
>>>
>>> I urge everyone with a right to vote (and only those, as per
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting) to vote
>>> no, and even those who voted
>>> yes to revert their votes to no.
>>>
>>> We need your help!
>>>
>> Am i watching a CNN movie?
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> Anatol
>>
>>
Exactly, the single thing I see failing here is the voting RFC. Not
because of itself, but because it's useless when it comes to the politics
we have here. And that confrontations do actually much more harm than any
technical issue ever.
Regards
Anatol
Thread (13 messages)