Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105524
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> <CAJHtznzSOo1Xbmu3N9C_GEo6woDC0STVR_nVjUCusT65dfPe=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznzSOo1Xbmu3N9C_GEo6woDC0STVR_nVjUCusT65dfPe=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:38:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHN63oP50AwJ=r38=OBgr-WebP1pOCbYaqVHw7_LDVYxV8wMHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, "G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090ac510587c3b514"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags
From: mo.mu.wss@gmail.com ("M. W. Moe")

--00000000000090ac510587c3b514
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

a bit of fuzz; no need having a dramatic posture either; php RFC system
needs to be matured; the same way
than c++ fellowship (I don't say it was without dramas over the years); in
my opinion there are two many of them
opened at the same time; some targets strictly the userspace; some language
features and finally other regards
the zend engine (absolute on purpose); maybe they should not be discussed
on the same list.

tsch=C3=BCss!

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:25 AM Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:

> 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 strongl=
y
> > > 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 hotte=
r
> potato to handle. Both 'abolish' RFCs enjoyed popular support and had ver=
y
> 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 havin=
g
> their tooth pulled out without anesthesia (which still pales in compariso=
n
> 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 surrounde=
d
> it (the last one is my opinion, the first two are facts) - and it will ha=
ve
> 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 user=
s
> from taking the hit.
>
> If we are to inflict this hit on our users - we need to have each and eve=
ry
> t crossed and i dotted.
>
> Zeev
>

--00000000000090ac510587c3b514--