Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105523
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=kQp+6z83/wN9FnSAx//xeRlBhysCtwVxZefic5SetJQR97y8tA5f5KodbXNYPH
	8KqrXjhqA5ypkG3CQQwr9Jf14cQssiObzN7y/k7dHLvS4ySEUd8Qr8NJA0TLegMz
	KXqF6cKpr7glo4ebgBOmmInpLDtzWkw8dOadzGIe86FeA=;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFPFaMJEn=gjk5jAAxR2bF=4Mt3r0FJCm6mbOCReOmyybtAkkg@mail.gmail.com> <e5c10f59-bde9-dadc-e837-266f870b6358@lsces.co.uk> <B392E7C8-BBAC-48D2-BBBA-3D7C7EFD9595@koalephant.com> <e702a5cc-9567-0591-8f5e-b14aef0766b7@lsces.co.uk> <CAAfnsFU1B61qaPRAh5uNTWMALcV5xmae0Yb1yY9+QaAGLVGx7A@mail.gmail.com> <49A4B76C-4C62-4CBE-BA20-FBE56CA29AB0@cschneid.com> <CADyq6sL7m=A=pA1rNBg_CFOoMtfCZn50AfALh9jtLHvn9NRzmw@mail.gmail.com> <609E93CF-099B-446C-AD28-04F1D802C9F0@cschneid.com> <000401d4fac8$ae592cf0$0b0b86d0$@roze.lv> <CAJHtznz-Dm7ft6qJ6Y6sjnaL4G0cwVVJyakxr_zprhxQzqUkVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFPFaML4QTbtJXLuheGwTTT204vY40TeT5TLEX22oYTNrNJ8Qg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtznwnbM54uAzStVfAOjUTgEoDr8XpOFCYdVjgrtZfFgrSJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFPFaM+EGh6zZgSdDXo06wdY==Fujm1JFWFO88EmvggC-fdFJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtznztD-UOSoeSApvTMidNo6z20MUWNNBRUW84_JxM0fRq-g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904301800070.9606@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904301800070.9606@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:25:35 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJHtznzSOo1Xbmu3N9C_GEo6woDC0STVR_nVjUCusT65dfPe=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: "G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>, PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a0af900587c387a7"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--000000000000a0af900587c387a7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:14 PM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:32 PM G. P. B. <george.banyard@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this just boils down to what is an acceptable majority, if
> > > 2/3 is not enough then 3/4 but this is another debate altogether.
> > >
> >
> > I've argued in the past that it would make sense to require a 9/10
> majority
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > 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


It's not that I think it's flawed - I know it's flawed.  It doesn't
implement what was agreed upon when the Voting RFC was enacted.


> , you know that the RFC process is there for
> anybody to change it. Joe already managed twice towards what you
> suggested in your stalled RFC:
>
> - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-short-votes
> - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins (btw, you voted
>   against this one to raise the barrier from 50%+1 to =E2=85=94rds).
>

I'm well aware of it.  In doing that, I think we greatly complicated the
prospects of fixing the voting eligibility - which is an infinitely hotter
potato to handle. Both 'abolish' RFCs enjoyed popular support and had very
little touchy subjects - unlike the topic of who gets to vote, or the
prospect of moving to a consensus-based system.

> It's absolutely fine to dislike short tags.  It's absolutely fine to
> > believe it shouldn't have been introduced.  But the gap between that,
> > and thinking it's fine to remove it - is very, very big.
>
> But the fact is that the RFC passed. And retroactively changing rules
> because somebody don't agree with a decision is making a farce out of
> the process.
>

I've detailed the issues with the RFC in my other reply.

I'm well aware that I'm spending quite a bit of 'credit capital' by
weighing in on this, and I'm enjoying it roughly as one would enjoy having
their tooth pulled out without anesthesia (which still pales in comparison
to what it would take to fix our voting process, which will probably be
akin to having an entire set of teeth pull out in the same way).   The
reason I'm still doing it is that it's clear this RFC was flawed in its
voting options, its substance, and the level of discussion that surrounded
it (the last one is my opinion, the first two are facts) - and it will have
HUGE implications on hundreds of thousands if not millions of users.  So as
I said when I first engaged this thread - as much as I'm 'enjoying' this, I
prefer to take the personal hit and do whatever I can to prevent our users
from taking the hit.

If we are to inflict this hit on our users - we need to have each and every
t crossed and i dotted.

Zeev

--000000000000a0af900587c387a7--