百度 具体来说，一是要深化改革创新，摆脱发展模式的“路径依赖”。
On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Philip,
>
> Shouldn't we be focusing on how this makes PHP better? And not nitpick
>> about a percentage point or two?
>>
>
> Well, this passed with 62.8%. Property accessors failed with 60.7%. The
> target for acceptance is 66.6%. So 3.8% is enough to throw away, but 5.9%
> isn't?
>
> I think the point of this discussion is that rules are rules for a reason.
> You can't be high and holy and deny one RFC judiciously, and then hand-wave
> and say the next RFC doesn't matter because the intention is there (or
> whatever rationale is).
>
> Either we stick to the rules, or we throw them out and install a BDFL.
> Either way, I don't care. I just think the current
> they-sometimes-matter-depending-on-who-and-when-it-is-raised stance is
> deeper than BS, it's dangerous and is actively turning away contributors
> (as well as harming the project)…
Hello Anthony,
Good points. And the vague release/voting RFCs also contribute to this.
And FWIW, I think PHP needs a BDFL, but we'll have to convince the one
potential candidate to agree. :)
Regards,
Philip