Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66557
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender)
References: <435a322ccb14090d3bcf6bf8a110396d@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU56QE=uMFcE+xe2vSzwCH_9KGFs33bJCySWpsx6Ed7k3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpds9XnOZC9gfDs8OHmoe6hTQosqe8qzmTtTX4Xg-JsT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8944597477930141639@unknownmsgid>	<5138CBBC.8030409@lerdorf.com>
	<slrnkjhvva.g88.dsp@experimentalworks.net>	<EC222032-F472-40B4-83F9-6BC34440204E@roshambo.org>
	<CAAyV7nHy3z--mXX0C-c3TWMP9__j27viwb=68jr5CkgXfZg4yA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2bb1c8ba9522986b8c6d71ac8e5af0dc@mail.gmail.com> <CAOhuFvan4FhJahuXV9UjobG6p1Or1qygLk9-C6tgJZKX04udZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOhuFvan4FhJahuXV9UjobG6p1Or1qygLk9-C6tgJZKX04udZg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQJ3DSuB//AVAgGgZEkT5WvLzC9oRwILJHjTAh6IVksCNX/beQJaoERJAgAkWjoCr3nTmwH+w2ctAgRG0NABmDhLTZaxw70Q
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:49:21 +0200
Message-ID: <69278224f04c74043dcd0fac58069acc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rafael Dohms <listas@rafaeldohms.com.br>
Cc: Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
	Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>, David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafael Dohms [mailto:listas@rafaeldohms.com.br]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:52 PM
> To: Andi Gutmans
> Cc: Anthony Ferrara; Philip Olson; David Soria Parra; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP
> distribution
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The 62.8% comparison to 60.7% is the most out of touch thing I've read
> > on this mailing list in a long time. If you're talking about pure
> > feature yay/nay then 94% have given a yay to this "feature". The split
> > is the timing.
> >
> >
> Sorry, but math is not liable to what is being measured by a percentage.
So to
> this point if there is something being done without 2/3 approval, then
its wrong.

Rafael,

You seem to be a bit misinformed here.  RFCs actually do NOT require 2/3
majority by default, it's left for special cases only.  The default is
50%+1.  See for yourself - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting

There was a bit of discussion on whether or not including Optimizer+ in
PHP is an RFC that falls in the special 2/3 requirement or not.  We'll
talk about that in a sec, but it's not really important at all as for this
particular question - 94%, 66 out of 70 voters, voted in favor.

There's absolutely no question that changing PHP's release cycle does
*not* require a 2/3 vote.  Let's look for a second what the voting RFC has
to say about it:

------
=== Required Majority ===

Given that changes to languages (as opposed to changes to apps or even
frameworks) are for the most part irreversible - the purpose of the vote
is to ensure that there's strong support for the proposed feature. It
needs to be clear that there are a lot more people actively supporting the
proposal, vs. people actively opposing it. We also need to ensure, as much
as possible, that the decision isn't based on some arbitrary circumstances
(such as a temporary marginal majority for a certain school of thought).
For these reasons, a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax for
example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the votes.
Other RFCs require 50% + 1 votes to get 'accepted'.
------

I know the text pretty well, I wrote it, and when I wrote it - I meant
what I said.  It's there to protect against *changes to the language*
which are irreversible.  The one thing I regret is that the phrasing
around what constitutes 'a feature affecting the language itself' was left
a bit vague, but one could definitely argue that language syntax and
language behavior are what we're talking about here.  Implementation
details, release timelines, included or excluded extensions - are most
certainly not.  There's nothing irreversible about them.

Zeev