Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74329
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain heigl.org from 176.9.19.43 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> <2c358135f69515053b7b1fdac179027d@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <2c358135f69515053b7b1fdac179027d@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6AF063B3-6CC1-4C34-9D0C-3D370232F6D0@heigl.org>
Cc: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>,
 Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>,
 Daniel Convissor <danielc@analysisandsolutions.com>,
 Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 09:15:37 +0200
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform improvements...)
From: andreas@heigl.org (Andreas Heigl)


> Am 18.05.2014 um 08:13 schrieb Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>:
>=20
> A few things:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -        We=E2=80=99re talking about 66%, not %66+1 (i.e., 20 against 10 m=
eans a
> Yes, 19 against 10 means a no).

Just to be mathematically clear and to avoid confusion:

We are talking about a 2/3 majority meaning 66.66% not 66%. That means 66 ag=
ainst 34 means no even though it's 66%. Perhaps that's where the 66%+1 comes=
 from.=20

Can't we simply talk of 2/3 to avoid any confusion?

Cheers

Andreas
>=20
> -        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 Votin=
g 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 cha=
nge the
> who=E2=80=99s eligible to vote.
>=20
> -        I am arguing (as well as a few others) that implementation change=
s
> =E2=80=93 ones without a meaningful impact on the userbase at large, shoul=
d be
> decided by the respective developers of the code portion in question.
> Annotations don=E2=80=99t fall under that category;  Changing internal dat=
a
> structures does, and so does changing a documentation platform or
> implementation inside some PECL module.  This isn=E2=80=99t simple to defi=
ne 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 an=
d
> 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 possi=
bility
> when I helped drafted it.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Zeev
>=20
>=20
>=20
> *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 platfor=
m
> improvements...)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> Let's reiterate this over... 66%+1 of voting members and not 66%+1 of core=

> members. Is that right?
>=20
> I really want this to be fixed, because Annotations for 66%+1 of voting
> members, but not of core member and it got rejected.
>=20
> Just to make things sure... I don't wanna hear about meritocracy again.
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Convissor <
> danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Folks:
>>=20
>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:12:18AM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>> I think it still mandates a 66%+1 vote.
>>=20
>> Agreed.  This is a major change.
>>=20
>> Sincerely,
>>=20
>> --Dan
>>=20
>> --
>> 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/
>>=20
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20
> 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 languag=
e
> in the voting RFC so that the interpretation is not so subjective in the
> future.
>=20
> --Kris
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Guilherme Blanco
> MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
> GTalk: guilhermeblanco
> Toronto - ON/Canada

--=20
Andreas Heigl
Andreas@heigl.org=