Re: [PEPr] -1 for RFC::Error Handling Guidelines for PHP5 packages
| From: | Greg Beaver | Date: | Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:04:25 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [PEPr] -1 for RFC::Error Handling Guidelines for PHP5 packages | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-32970@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Justin Patrin wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004 02:54:41 -0000, PEPr <pear-sys@php.net> wrote:I was personally out of town the entire time that the RFC was in proposal stage, and only in town for 4 days during the wiki period. It's summer time, do we really have to blitzkrieg an important decision? Personally, as I gain experience with PEPr, I am less and less satisfied with the voting procedure. Not only is the length of time too short to really get a majority viewpoint, but the ability to change a vote is actually somewhat important. If the voting period were 1 day, the inability to change a vote would be much more crucial. I wonder if it might be possible to consider having a 2-3 week period where you can vote and change your vote. Tracking votes is easy - each PEAR account can only have 1 total vote. Then the tally can be taken at the end of the third week after all of the debate can be at least heard, if not resolved. GregRichard York (http://pear.php.net/user/richy) has voted -1 on the proposal for RFC::Error Handling Guidelines for PHP5 packages. Proposal information: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=132 Vote information: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-vote-show.php?id=132&handle=richy Comment: I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the RFC. From what I've read I tend to agree with the dissenting opinions. Regardless, given all of the recent debate on PEAR-DEV, I'd personally prefer this was given more discussion between debating parties before commencing with voting. Obviously there are concerns, so that makes me think this is premature. So, sorry but given all the debate I have to vote -1 here.There was nearly no discussion of this for at least a week. Then the RFC was submitted and a few comments were made and addressed. Again, I'd like to ask *why* this discussion is happening now that the RFC has entered voting. Everything that is being brought up now was brought up, discussed, and dealt with before the RFC was even made a proposal in Pepr. The wiki was around for a week or two before that. Have any of you checked the archives to see how this was all discussed before?