Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104258 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 65197 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2019 22:25:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de) (81.169.146.217) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2019 22:25:08 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1549479994; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=kelunik.com; h=Cc:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:In-Reply-To:References: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=e33sHewyYva0omXwPTRYtNgJwPawYaOm5XmVUtWLs3Q=; b=s0FFI153jjfg/AxFnYM+NygZHJXOoV16AwZMu6A+kr3mje14HY63U4CnhFTsJIQOOa iqAtUbXn8Wkq0EaR2Zn1btgrQEIWOVIrWHlZadB1q7nA2pPxpwDzeC+/r5AdBt2vbTVm a3qy00+OBOCL69Ntuaf7qxhm2iUM1YuKqCrBBb4Acxi6l0cGeGrHvRwJmsBoHB59AOtU aeJHV0N5zrm3sDWRi5ADxpgvpkPtlkcgeYdt59yvlDwnc7HBOYO8k/MG9iBlvSGJXBEQ ymLqjbV5dwP955xN/Obc8Am1nAG02jhrNjluUnVa7OVgw2mK3ROcK5XBVSQyHP2dwiFW Yieg== X-RZG-AUTH: ":IWkkfkWkbvHsXQGmRYmUo9mlsGbEv0XHBzMIJSS+jKTzde5mDb8AaBYcZiAtcA==" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from mail-pf1-f171.google.com by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 44.9 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id 608c95v16J6YUcy (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp384r1 with 384 ECDH bits, eq. 7680 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 20:06:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf1-f171.google.com with SMTP id b7so3504654pfi.8 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:06:34 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYRgeA3ze8aakW5dCxnNrzFIUmLywJoraEsByBOMyRwsMfjR3ty Zrd1/yXogMkDVz9ST04DHVm3f94e5awDuYqeV5g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbmDytO90mxPJHuaiYje7N74ARgRoJYpojJwpwQg1dJWZyf5s7TlyVJx8Fc0xCIvZ8gwiagO2Df6iP6A+YKqTw= X-Received: by 2002:a63:e511:: with SMTP id r17mr11028626pgh.452.1549479993414; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:06:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 20:06:22 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Zeev Suraski Cc: Nikita Popov , Joe Watkins , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Abolish Narrow Margins From: me@kelunik.com (Niklas Keller) > I'll reiterate my main two issues with this RFC: > - I do think that we need 50%+1 votes for certain decisions. Naming the > next version of PHP, or even deciding to release it outside of the yearly > cycle should not require a 2/3 vote. It's not so much erring on the side > of being conservative - it's enforcing a bias for status-quo that simply > doesn't exist in these issues. Is it the end of the world that we won't > have it? No, but it's better that we would. > - More importantly, the voting base issue must be solved before we change > the voting rules. I find it extremely problematic process-wise that we'll > change the rules using a voting base that was never defined to be valid in > the first place. It's the only definition we currently have. We have to rely on the same voting base to change the voting base. I don't see how voting on all other RFCs is fine, but voting on this one isn't. > You mentioned that you don't see why the two issues are > interlinked - and you may be right, it's more that one is dependent on the > other. Voting eligibility is the first question we should answer, and it > should only be followed by the voting rules themselves. We currently have an answer to voting eligibility. It's one you may not like, but changing that is completely independent of changing voting margins. Regards, Niklas