Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106251 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1100 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2019 13:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.experimentalworks.net) (84.19.169.162) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2019 13:49:45 -0000 Received: from maniacmansion.fritz.box (ppp-188-174-49-129.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.49.129]) by mail.experimentalworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 724055CD0E; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:12:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: To: Zeev Suraski , "G. P. B." Cc: PHP internals Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:12:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <2311901d53767$1c5aa780$550ff680$@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: hebrevc() and other 'contentious' 7.4 proposed deprecations From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Tue, 2019-07-16 at 08:00 -0700, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > Now unanimity implies consensus however not having a unanimous vote > does > > not mean there is no consensus. > > Moreover, even though "consensus" does come from the Latin > *cōnsēnsus* (“agreement, > > accordance, unanimity”) [3] it does not require unanimity IMHO. > > > > While there are different definitions for consensus - as you point > out > yourself, one of the definitions is certainly a synonym for uninamity > - and > that's how I personally found it commonly used throughout my life. > Regardless, it certainly implies no strong disagreement from those in > the > minority - which is not the case here. A good reading on consensus in technical discussions is this: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 In my view there is a difference between a vote and consensus. In a vote I state "this is my preference" in a consensus I can say "it is not my preference, but I can support it" And I believe the key is to identify whether there are objections/vetos. Those have to be respected, as voting over volunteer contributors drives them away. Voting is good if there is no clear consensus or if one has to make a decision, left or right, and there's no clear consensus. Unanimity in a vote means that this is the preferred approach for everybody (among voters) On hebrev()/hebrevc(): I believe most contributors have no idea what it does and I for one have no need. It doesn't hurt me, though. As long as it works for the users I'd keep it since cost is low. If I'd support adding such a function in future is a different question. johannes