Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66537
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
References: <435a322ccb14090d3bcf6bf8a110396d@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU56QE=uMFcE+xe2vSzwCH_9KGFs33bJCySWpsx6Ed7k3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpds9XnOZC9gfDs8OHmoe6hTQosqe8qzmTtTX4Xg-JsT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8944597477930141639@unknownmsgid>	<CAEZPtU75+HZMcP+HUAEFGQ3R99g5_PsWJMd4OUkq+__s2CVc9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1a0793107537dceb9cc67c616294ce76@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEZPtU73==PG7QXT61LRZ0TNFUmtN1B5kBpXP1Cjvg2sZighGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5132FE98.5050201@lerdorf.com>	<CAEZPtU668P3YTn9g8CZbavb0nz-ui6NDKP0pCEb-7zZE+Q8-VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<513316A1.1050109@lerdorf.com>	<CAF+90c8G-dQHVgwbKL16kJmHjbJLMXai6bNS7TZjXT1OT+QBAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5WPhWh_yhcnFvTFdgPKsSez2DikEqrC2qthwHGUUbhzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5138C0FD.1010208@lerdorf.com>	<CAAyV7nFLoC2nL+Usocwm6f-bTPP24Q7OU6R1gd7pM8qSGLLVTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7faa70ac4ef59d9f7748b17de1d6892d@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nHO7EcxMKaBSuxHuehC7p6a4NOE58zGHkFOvkfvjV4JJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHO7EcxMKaBSuxHuehC7p6a4NOE58zGHkFOvkfvjV4JJw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJ3DSuB//AVAgGgZEkT5WvLzC9oRwILJHjTAh6IVksCNX/beQFFG8MiAtbChFYB2/TX5AJ4t6N5AapYFrwBw9xHyAGd9UCHAvo34cEB3U3fcgC509ASAjxUmPgCw0PT4ZZVKq0g
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:18:38 +0200
Message-ID: <5f2df0dd71a78d08dd11ced5f2b0a72a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	Laruence <laruence@php.net>, PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5396952dfb7c504d758e5d1
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--bcaec5396952dfb7c504d758e5d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Anthony,



94% of the votes voted in favor of integrating O+ into PHP, which is well
above 2/3, it=E2=80=99s almost 3/3.  The only open question was about timel=
ine.
And no matter how we twist it, whether it happens now or in a year has
ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with whether or not it=E2=80=99s a language change=
.  In
other words, if I phrased the RFC differently, and only asked who=E2=80=99s=
 in
favor vs. who=E2=80=99s against =E2=80=93 it would get a 94% vote in favor,=
 easily blowing
past both the 51% barrier as well as the 67% barrier.  A 2nd RFC, asking
people to vote about the timeline =E2=80=93 would have gotten 44 vs 22, whi=
ch
happens to be 2/3, but clearly, would not have required more than 51% since
it=E2=80=99s a timeline question, not a language change question.



I=E2=80=99m afraid that=E2=80=99s as far as I=E2=80=99m willing to play thi=
s game of bureaucracy.
The voting RFC wasn=E2=80=99t designed to turn PHP into The House, or a cou=
rtroom.
There=E2=80=99s absolutely NO WAY we can reach consensus, and there=E2=80=
=99s no way the
overwhelming majority would agree to paralysis imposed by a tiny minority.
Let=E2=80=99s put it to rest, we all have better things to do with our time=
.



Zeev





*From:* Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:02 PM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* Rasmus Lerdorf; Nikita Popov; Laruence; PHP Developers Mailing List
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
distribution



Zeev,



As a rule of thumb, if the language syntax doesn=E2=80=99t change, it doesn=
=E2=80=99t need
a 2/3 vote.

How do I know?  I asked for this special majority in the first place.  It
was designed to protect the language from becoming the kitchen sink of
programming languages, not from making architectural progress.



If we need to amend the original voting RFC text so that it=E2=80=99s clear=
er =E2=80=93
let=E2=80=99s do that.  Right now it=E2=80=99s slightly ambiguous because i=
t mentions
=E2=80=98language syntax=E2=80=99 as an example, instead of outright saying=
 that it=E2=80=99s about
that, period.



Ambiguous writing is no excuse. People vote based on what is written, not
what was intended. Clarifying after the fact the intentions is not how RFCs
are designed to work. The point is that there's supposed to be clarity in
the text. And considering that the text is pretty clear that any change
affecting the language itself must have 2/3 majority, the question is not
what was intended by that statement, but if adopting ZO+ affects the
language (by interpretation).



So far, from what I've seen, you and Rasmus are the major people backing
the "this is not a language change" camp. In the other camp, there are
several people who have stood up and said that it does appear to be a
language change. I'm not trying to draw lines in the sand, but I'm trying
to point out that we have a disagreement that needs to be resolved.



Hand waving and saying "it's not what I meant by that line" shows nothing
but disrespect for the system and for everyone who participates in it...



So my proposal is to slow down for a minute and not call this RFC accepted
or not until we can come to some consensus as to if it classifies as a
language change or not... Better to clarify for the health of the project
than to plow through and risk causing further strife...



Anthony

--bcaec5396952dfb7c504d758e5d1--