Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76093
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSxkO4xaZP=rsTwdzX6vD9b2qAkqaXCi2CC63sWPrv0J5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXaRgqKWG_M3n+H+=6FYqzNVE3hi3VfO8Ji1Ckf9uV+PVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSxkO4xaZP=rsTwdzX6vD9b2qAkqaXCi2CC63sWPrv0J5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:51:54 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPgLKiiWCqFcZyzOAH-OaUWtwhXVi0ZicNW_2PbThbnTd6RKAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2d2bedcb51f04feffd8e1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--001a11c2d2bedcb51f04feffd8e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
> not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positi=
ve
> =E2=80=98side effect=E2=80=99 of their apps running faster.  So while we =
believe that
> technically a 50%+1 vote should suffice, we hope to get well over 2/3.
>
> If you're not going to delay this, then you should at very least clarify
> the wording in this section.  You believe 50%+1 should suffice but hope t=
o
> get well over 2/3.  So is the *required* majority 50%+1 or 2/3?
>

The text I put there is exactly what I think about the subject of required
majority.  50%+1 is enough for a change that does not effect end users in
any meaningful way, but I'll be happier if it received a 2/3 majority to
leave any doubts away.

I should also point out that, according to the Voting RFC, whether or not
> an RFC "actually affects end users in any meaningful way" is NOT a factor
> in determining whether a 2/3 supermajority is required or not.  Here's wh=
at
> it actually states:
>
> > 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'.
>
> Since the phpng RFC already acknowledges that it affects the language
> itself, this is clearly a 2/3 requirement situation.  Whether it affects
> end-users or not is irrelevant.  Under current rules, your RFC must have
> 2/3 support in order to pass.
>

As the person who wrote that text in the Voting RFC, I can tell you with
absolute certainty that you are 100% wrong in your interpretation, as I've
said numerous times in the past.
A feature that affects the *language* itself is not a feature that affects
the *language implementation*.
Generally speaking, now that we have a Specification project, the spirit of
the Voting RFC is that changes to the Language Specification would require
2/3 majority, while all other changes would not.  This is also not 100%
accurate since there are some elements of the language behavior that aren't
covered by the spec (e.g.superglobal availability and behavior) - but
replacing the implementation with a compatible one absolutely does *not* fa=
ll
within the realm of "features that affect the language".

If you recall the 64-bit discussion several months ago, when I was (back
then) on the opposing side, I clearly said to people who said this requires
a 2/3 majority that it's very debatable - because while it does have some
end user impact that changes the language behavior, it's mostly an
implementation issue, which as such requires a simple majority.  So I'm
both consistent, and not reinterpreting the rules to fit my needs.

 As such, I ask that you at least update the wording to make it clear that
> 2/3 *is* required for the RFC to pass in order to avoid confusion when it
> comes to a vote.  I still think you should hold-off until these other
> issues of dispute are resolved, though.  But that's your choice.  I simpl=
y
> ask that you fix the required majority section to make it in compliance
> with current voting rules.
>

I updated the section to be fully technical and removed my wish of heart to
get a 2/3 majority.  Although I'd still very much like to get > 2/3, it's
not required.

Zeev

--001a11c2d2bedcb51f04feffd8e1--