Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74328
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.220.174 cause and error)
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>
 <CAFp73Xus60PEEjTVrXy=F4pXek53jgcYvCZnFtC7UX6fvyi77A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFp73Xus60PEEjTVrXy=F4pXek53jgcYvCZnFtC7UX6fvyi77A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQC7HuE3UTXSihebCHoftrMU80C7TANQnU43APB9DS4CfHO5+wLX3e4wAqgCypsCpjSerAJPXaA5AbklBvSc1x644A==
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 09:13:35 +0300
Message-ID: <2c358135f69515053b7b1fdac179027d@mail.gmail.com>
To: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Convissor <danielc@analysisandsolutions.com>, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d5d7e26dc5604f9a68c7d
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform improvements...)
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--047d7b5d5d7e26dc5604f9a68c7d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A few things:



-        We=E2=80=99re talking about 66%, not %66+1 (i.e., 20 against 10 me=
ans a
Yes, 19 against 10 means a no).

-        Nobody is arguing that language changes like annotations will be
decided by =E2=80=98Core=E2=80=99.  It=E2=80=99s open to everyone who has a=
 right to vote according
to the RFC process.  Note that presently, people who are allowed to vote
technically don=E2=80=99t actually have a right to vote based on the Voting=
 RFC,
which requires not only an SVN account, but also actual code contributions
to the PHP project;  This was a known issue when we rolled out the voting
mechanism, but this limitation of the voting mechanism doesn=E2=80=99t chan=
ge the
who=E2=80=99s eligible to vote.

-        I am arguing (as well as a few others) that implementation changes
=E2=80=93 ones without a meaningful impact on the userbase at large, should=
 be
decided by the respective developers of the code portion in question.
Annotations don=E2=80=99t fall under that category;  Changing internal data
structures does, and so does changing a documentation platform or
implementation inside some PECL module.  This isn=E2=80=99t simple to defin=
e but
I=E2=80=99m going to try and draft something up, probably based on the the =
Karma
assignment.  Again, this will *not* impact people=E2=80=99s right to vote o=
n the
vast majority of RFCs out there, which are almost always about features and
functions, and rarely about implementation.  I still argue that the RFC
process was never meant to be about implementation, it was so outside the
scope of the RFC process that I didn=E2=80=99t even think about this possib=
ility
when I helped drafted it.



Zeev



*From:* guilhermeblanco@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermeblanco@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, May 18, 2014 7:58 AM
*To:* Kris Craig
*Cc:* Daniel Convissor; Ferenc Kovacs; Zeev Suraski; Nikita Popov; PHP
Internals
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform
improvements...)



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




--=20
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

--047d7b5d5d7e26dc5604f9a68c7d--