Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100574
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVoiqHxycJ6CDGQm8hXipVZV-a=MD78D2sV7pSXOSnKgvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVoiqHxycJ6CDGQm8hXipVZV-a=MD78D2sV7pSXOSnKgvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:38:41 +0800
Message-ID: <CAF+90c8HDfM-JaqnkipiDfuABY_-_ucj544pD7mpw7D+KK0_6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0825bdd848b9f605591e03a2"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discuss] Increase non-syntax runtime-impacting
 RFC voting threshold to 60%
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--089e0825bdd848b9f605591e03a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc.voting-threshold
>
> This topic has come up on the mailing list a few times, so I'd like to
> formally open the topic for discussion.
>
> I'm generally pretty liberal when it comes to allowing the PHP
> language to evolve and explore its identity, but the truth is a
> feature that has 30 people vote against it and 31 people vote in favor
> of it is not a mandate by any stretch of the imagination.  It's an
> opportunity to examine why a divide exists and if we're all being
> honest with each other, improve the original idea before it becomes a
> maintenance burden.
>
> Please note the "Open Question".  I'm not all that sure 60% is enough
> of a mandate either, but I wanted to be conservative in my
> conservatism.  If folks think 2/3 is more appropriate (and consistent
> with syntax changes), I'm happy to change this number before we move
> to voting phase.
>
> -Sara
>
> Or, as Ze'ev once famously said, "Give the language a rest".
>

+1 on this, though I would strongly recommend to use a 2/3 threshold for
all RFCs, be they language, library or procedural. We're having this
discussion on nearly every single RFC (seriously, even the UUID RFC which
is as non-language as these things get had arguments about this) and this
would be a good chance to simplify the rules.

I would also explicitly note that the voting threshold applies to the
primary RFC vote only, while secondary votes are simple majority votes.

Nikita

--089e0825bdd848b9f605591e03a2--