Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110642
To: Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com>
CC: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax
Thread-Index: AQHWRQk7fBeENHuAzUaFE0ISZ1saIQ==
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 01:11:07 +0000
Message-ID:
 <BYAPR05MB653598D9F4FE381E8AFAD1AEDE9B0@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 73b1db33-e599-4424-b337-08d813247ac1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jun 2020 01:11:07.1610
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6NAM12HT144
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax
From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown)

On Wed, June 17, 2020 at 7:23 PM Ben Ramsey wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 18:59, Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com> wrot=
e:=0A=
> > =0A=
> > I've opened voting on the Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC:=0A=
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax=0A=
> > =0A=
> > Since all RFCs require a primary vote with a 2/3 majority, there is=0A=
> > a main vote to approve the secondary ranked-choice vote.=0A=
> =0A=
> I don=92t understand this question:=0A=
> =0A=
> > Are you okay with re-voting on the attribute syntax for PHP 8.0?=0A=
> =0A=
> Is this a vote to see if we want to re-vote on the attribute syntax? I=0A=
> think this is worded awkwardly, and I=92m not sure what the outcome of a=
=0A=
> yes or not vote means for this question.=0A=
=0A=
Hi Ben,=0A=
=0A=
I apologize if the wording is a bit awkward. The primary vote is to=0A=
formally approve holding the secondary ranked-choice vote, since all=0A=
RFCs require a primary vote with 2/3 majority. If the primary vote=0A=
doesn't reach a 2/3 majority, then the results of the secondary vote=0A=
won't be binding.=0A=
=0A=
I haven't heard from anyone who is against holding the ranked-choice=0A=
vote, but based on discussion with the RMs we felt it was best to=0A=
include this primary vote to make sure the RFC doesn't deviate from=0A=
the rules.=0A=
=0A=
> If I vote =93no,=94 should I still vote in the secondary vote, or is voti=
ng=0A=
> =93no=94 effectively the same as choosing `<<>>` for all three choices in=
=0A=
> the secondary vote?=0A=
> =0A=
> Or, if I vote =93no,=94 does that mean anything I select for the secondar=
y=0A=
> vote is thrown out?=0A=
=0A=
No, voting "no" on the primary poll won't add or remove any votes from=0A=
the secondary poll. If the `<<>>` syntax is your first choice, you=0A=
should mark it as such in the secondary poll.=0A=
=0A=
Best regards,=0A=
Theodore=0A=