Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105519 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79183 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2019 20:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xdebug.org) (82.113.146.227) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2019 20:12:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D7B10C7FC; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:14:15 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:14:14 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl To: Zeev Suraski cc: "G. P. B." , PHP Internals List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <49A4B76C-4C62-4CBE-BA20-FBE56CA29AB0@cschneid.com> <609E93CF-099B-446C-AD28-04F1D802C9F0@cschneid.com> <000401d4fac8$ae592cf0$0b0b86d0$@roze.lv> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-1440833841-1556644123=:9606" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-1440833841-1556644123=:9606 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Zeev Suraski wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:32 PM G. P. B. wrot= e: >=20 > > I think this just boils down to what is an acceptable majority, if=20 > > 2/3 is not enough then 3/4 but this is another debate altogether. > > >=20 > I've argued in the past that it would make sense to require a 9/10 majori= ty > for RFCs. Very few RFCs that passed - only cleared a 2/3 majority. > Usually (in the vast majority of cases), it either clears a nearly > unanimous vote - or it doesn't even come close to 2/3. >=20 > RFCs that have a high number of votes (i.e., that people feel strongly > about), and barely pass the 2/3 mark - are controversial and saw division= =2E > Yes, it means that out of the (almost random) group of people who are > currently enabled to vote by our (flawed) voting system If you think it's flawed, you know that the RFC process is there for=20 anybody to change it. Joe already managed twice towards what you=20 suggested in your stalled RFC: - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-short-votes - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins (btw, you voted=20 against this one to raise the barrier from 50%+1 to =E2=85=94rds). > It's absolutely fine to dislike short tags. It's absolutely fine to=20 > believe it shouldn't have been introduced. But the gap between that,=20 > and thinking it's fine to remove it - is very, very big. But the fact is that the RFC passed. And retroactively changing rules=20 because somebody don't agree with a decision is making a farce out of=20 the process. So what's next? From what I understood, Nikita and George have spoken to=20 take Nikita's implementation proposals forwards. I'm pretty sure that=20 this will result in another RFC on which we then can vote. cheers, Derick --=20 https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php, or become my Patron: https://www.patreon.com/derickr twitter: @derickr and @xdebug --8323329-1440833841-1556644123=:9606--