Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104236
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net;
	h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type;
	b=wqr5yay3D9UxKcv3nzOqC6flRIacQDRZWuojR6NfWvSkxVEDF96xspDGWcv6Q+
	U3u2wmYmhOrHYFENgN+CJk3+zge2hS6L1WSRvhqkBZ3sXWfO3ThtKImojkOR4kvn
	TPwIQKCrm/PgTqOMDGSpXKb+9AV5VLo+MRI6SVzQ4BgXc=;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOwTYAsePeRLZZVK=QKftoOtug2_F=5bsti56z2mJfBXP0u4rw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB5594D2DE0A166B13024E44B9AC910@DM6PR02MB5594.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAF+90c84ukPn2AwGL5-8srOwO=8MhhgG7-BFGfw9t8oSZHb_2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtzny4gBkfCS42SOup+GO-Nqd-xC-9S4k=JthFvBB134=Xzg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c_bmePEVY7pAJmrDn0YThc-XQi7CZZLmMRy1XYDvAtYfw@mail.gmail.com> <5b452f5d-f7d5-e8ea-fd67-8f0c8520b94b@gmail.com> <CAF+90c_LZ7=Ux4GLSeNHixsV46rbGYK0eSc7nZGqXeNMX6f-kQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_LZ7=Ux4GLSeNHixsV46rbGYK0eSc7nZGqXeNMX6f-kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 11:50:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJHtznxDeA4vT3kujRnbBQ5EPBR89AUDtF88SFTOFvDs2qkT-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040893e058136aa86"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Abolish Narrow Margins
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--00000000000040893e058136aa86
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 1:38 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:16 AM Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Let me reply to the last point first, because I think that's really the
>> > crux here: The issue is not that this RFC is very urgent per se, it's
>> that
>> > it has already been delayed numerous times and it is imperative that we
>> > prevent that from happening again. Since this issue was first raised, a
>>
>> That's understandable. But I think if we have an ongoing discussion now,
>> waiting until this discussion comes to some conclusion or at least
>> giving it some reasonable time to do so is a good thing. Note the
>> "reasonable" part - it doesn't mean it should wait another 2 years. But
>> if 2+ year old RFC is revived I think it's reasonable to wait a week or
>> two with vote. Original margins were meant for situation where somebody
>> puts up RFC and immediately proceeds to vote, not for situation where
>> RFC lies dormant for 2 years, then revived and immediately proceeds to
>> vote without most people even remembering what happened 2 years ago. I
>> think in this case it's reasonable to wait a little bit - and I don't
>> see a reason why not.
>>
>
> That's reasonable. What is important to me is that:
>
> a) We don't vote RFCs with low margins in the meantime. As a show of good
> faith, it would be nice to adjust the vote in the JIT RFC to require a 2/3
> majority.
>
> b) The voting margin question is resolved separately from other concerns.
> I very specifically do not want this bundled with anything else. I don't
> want the voting margin adjustment to fail because of other changes bundled
> in the same RFC. Conversely, I do not want other changes in the same RFC to
> pass simply because it's the only way to get the voting margin changes.
>

I would like no RFCs to be voted on before we sort out the voting base as
well.  The more elaborate process can wait as it's probably not very
relevant to the few RFCs that are in motion.  But both the voting base and
voting margins are very relevant.

We will not be moving the JIT RFC into a vote before that happens.

Zeev

--00000000000040893e058136aa86--