On Aug 22, 2015 9:33 AM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > If that's what it will take I will happily draft one tomorrow morning.
But
> > if the RMs are against it, I will respect that as well. Hence the
dilemma.
>
> For what I understand the RMs are not against what it is proposed but
> its incompleteness and the fact that it affects the timeline for php
> 7.
>
> The sooner will benefit from a RFC, making this whole discussion a lot
> clearer. The latter is a requirement to change, even slightly,
> anything about what we decided for php 7. The RMs role is to ensure we
> respect what we decided by RFC, hence the oppositions.
By the way, I would really like to see other voicing their opinion on the
matter, especially those having pushed hard in favour of this timeline.
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > If that's what it will take I will happily draft one tomorrow morning.
But
> > if the RMs are against it, I will respect that as well. Hence the
dilemma.
>
> For what I understand the RMs are not against what it is proposed but
> its incompleteness and the fact that it affects the timeline for php
> 7.
>
> The sooner will benefit from a RFC, making this whole discussion a lot
> clearer. The latter is a requirement to change, even slightly,
> anything about what we decided for php 7. The RMs role is to ensure we
> respect what we decided by RFC, hence the oppositions.
By the way, I would really like to see other voicing their opinion on the
matter, especially those having pushed hard in favour of this timeline.