Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74327 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27213 invoked from network); 18 May 2014 06:00:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 May 2014 06:00:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.128.173 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.128.173 mail-ve0-f173.google.com Received: from [209.85.128.173] ([209.85.128.173:36371] helo=mail-ve0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 28/C1-12623-A9C48735 for ; Sun, 18 May 2014 02:00:59 -0400 Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id pa12so4960873veb.4 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=5HrH5AIpOq41ykRHND07594WBWc+LtWwH2+zpNSCS1k=; b=I5bKA8aqzZHdl8cIB6/ktkjm4S2kWsbi25G2N+N+19ZSkn9odbFtq78oppP+p54nCF H2+GdvhwjN7kXCSc2BmTHekmtC9nhriX+GDHb6tVe0AVGYzdpsvXc4SXGf8EEYiNgv7+ 1N5F+koRcdJX8vse1BvNdyN1jFYas7cPVjjonoAikrqYVh/K1ZtCxFWQD0IAagcDBCpe KEZnYW2rxw52kElnDBj1GLwa3GJYiJ1G1TpmHERJWN5pI7Wa1kfwPyZZarZw/drvEhUh kVINbp4hqD5f5NTDx3bPsvyGaY3cBUrc45Y4TYcG1h7O2cFuiCZRoUDw9a5D6diZAJi3 pkJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkN8IL+GdRFoQN1r2woQJ1xHA9S+2AfGJd03inKZiho5towmg55NIDHLOLg1+0fWcsIYVogYtk7qaV5fibuaiJovEYCj4DAIRVXVDX1PSiobQ3KU7DmJetvBiXjW3LjGrQyZSen X-Received: by 10.220.250.203 with SMTP id mp11mr6879568vcb.2.1400392855786; Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:55 -0700 (PDT) References: <20140517133037.GA6153@analysisandsolutions.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQC7HuE3UTXSihebCHoftrMU80C7TANQnU43APB9DS4CfHO5+wLX3e4wAqgCypsCpjSerAJPXaA5nOTmmQA= Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 09:00:52 +0300 Message-ID: <3e952a0c6efd73f75db73b0868a4d655@mail.gmail.com> To: Kris Craig , Daniel Convissor Cc: Ferenc Kovacs , Nikita Popov , PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0502b72f0604f9a65e9e Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform improvements...) From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) --089e013d0502b72f0604f9a65e9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. The reality is that under the current Voting RFC, it can be interpreted either way. That said, the RFC authors are obviously biased by definition, and there=E2=80=99s no reason to attribute more weight to their assessment = of the impact of the RFC than anybody else=E2=80=99s (not just in this case, but a= lways). That=E2=80=99s one of the issues with the current voting RFC. --089e013d0502b72f0604f9a65e9e--