Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74324
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSzUgN13JO84mcVm_k3w+4EApMdDoREiBp0g3-NGZ3EM-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e5f19ac0089d24adc695fce93ad9bd9c.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
 <CA+9eiLuoJM5bwA46M_2YddTXYOhAwhii=9Ref7-NNeuRuBfW5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU7zz=npjUhacwSBA6cz+kb9iBmn3fjkvYuAjqtiPQgJhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9J5mtTzqFxvQHka5w5zVoGOzXNaUeYec62X_LYLOPcxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <db6f4b4c2d10f343d4c30ee66d82b0eb@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH7mQkdV=JM0R4zF5-rwMLDmZCrWWqidhZG6TcVdyffgow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140517133037.GA6153@analysisandsolutions.com> <CAKOpQSzUgN13JO84mcVm_k3w+4EApMdDoREiBp0g3-NGZ3EM-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 00:57:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFp73Xus60PEEjTVrXy=F4pXek53jgcYvCZnFtC7UX6fvyi77A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Convissor <danielc@analysisandsolutions.com>, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, 
	Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86f126be698304f9a57e54
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform improvements...)
From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com")

--047d7b86f126be698304f9a57e54
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

Let's reiterate this over... 66%+1 of voting members and not 66%+1 of core
members. Is that right?
I really want this to be fixed, because Annotations for 66%+1 of voting
members, but not of core member and it got rejected.
Just to make things sure... I don't wanna hear about meritocracy again.

Cheers,


On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Convissor <
> danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks:
> >
> > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:12:18AM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > >  I think it still mandates a 66%+1 vote.
> >
> > Agreed.  This is a major change.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > --Dan
> >
> > --
> >  T H E   A N A L Y S I S   A N D   S O L U T I O N S   C O M P A N Y
> >             data intensive web and database programming
> >                 http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
> I agree that it should have been, but under the current language of the
> voting RFC, it can also be reasonably interpreted to call for a simple
> majority.  The RFC author chose to go with simple majority and left it
> there.  Trying to change the requirement mid-vote would be far more
> troubling, in my view.  Instead, we should discuss clarifying that language
> in the voting RFC so that the interpretation is not so subjective in the
> future.
>
> --Kris
>



-- 
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

--047d7b86f126be698304f9a57e54--