-
-
Save morrisonlevi/7f96c2dacdfbd69c4016 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Dear Internals, | |
At the risk of exacerbating the ongoing drama, we (authors below) ask | |
that the community stop to examine the circumstances surrounding the | |
in-progress PHP6/7 RFC vote. | |
The vote has already been cancelled once, and we acknowledge that many | |
will not care about the details presented here. Most people will | |
simply want a resolution, and that's perfectly understandable. We all | |
do. We also believe it's important that the RFC process (and changes | |
to PHP) arise from objective, unbiased information. Unfortunately, the | |
history of this RFC has not aligned with these goals. | |
The RFC is, if in no other way, linguistically biased towards PHP 7. | |
Statements of clear opinion (e.g. "the case for 7 is very strong") | |
have no place in an objective RFC. We are bothered that the RFC is | |
openly biased because the reason the vote was stopped in the first | |
place was to remove the bias towards PHP 6 that was initially | |
present. | |
It is also clear from conversations we've observed on the list, on IRC | |
and on Twitter that emotional attachment is an extremely significant | |
reason to skip PHP 6, yet it isn't mentioned anywhere in the RFC. | |
While emotional attachment may or may not sway your vote, it is an | |
important historical context that contributes to why this is a | |
contested issue. | |
The RFC in question went to vote within 24 hours of a major revision. | |
This is hardly enough time for serious discussion or contemplation. | |
Had a large enough feedback window existed there would be little need | |
to call for a re-vote. And while we believe that a re-vote is | |
necessary in this case, this message is more concerned with behavior | |
than process. While this is not a violation of the wording of the | |
voting RFC, we believe it is against its spirit. | |
As a result of the issues presented here, we believe that voting on | |
this RFC be closed again until these concerns and any others are | |
resolved. | |
But most of all, let us do better next time. | |
Sincerely, | |
Levi Morrison (levim) | |
Anthony Ferrara (ircmaxell) | |
Bob Weinand (bwoebi) | |
Tjerk Anne Meesters (dattibaw) | |
Phil Sturgeon (philstu) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment