Re: Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO

On 19/03/2017 21:54, Jakub Zelenka wrote:

I don't really think that we any definition for mantainer role. Currently it varies depending on the extension. For example you won't see many RFC's in date ext which is very well maintained by Derick and most of the changes are decided by him which I think is a very good thing and works very well.

[...]

Sorry but I just don't agree with that. We are talking about a feature for PDO that not many voters is interested in. That's completely different than a language change. The interest in other core extensions is often the same.

Fair points. I'm not sure the RFC process as a whole works well for specialist decisions - the same has come up with very technical Engine changes. I think this kind of breaks down into two questions: - Which changes need an RFC? - If a change does need an RFC, what level of support does it need? I don't have particularly good answers, but "this change shouldn't have needed an RFC in the first place" is a very different direction from "after the RFC has been debated, this person should have a veto / casting vote". I realise that's not what you were suggesting, though, and I'm happy to go with "the current system is not really a problem".

If we had such rule on the minimal number of votes, one person could easily block any progress on the any extension.

I am a little curious what you meant by this, though; I can't see how it follows at all. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]