Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76385
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.179 as permitted sender)
References: <5a5c7d37c2115f52a58d82d489540a6d@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPgKKxUvmQOm_vRJNOZMCNZpwm3w8spYFj1pOGEqmgxZb9eoxg@mail.gmail.com> <78C8A4C4-0FA5-4445-AFA7-558B14C831F6@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <78C8A4C4-0FA5-4445-AFA7-558B14C831F6@ajf.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQGbyuheUrfNqTo1UF1zr6R+DTERegGe2sygARbJCJqcFah2MA==
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 15:59:24 +0300
Message-ID: <5f3f8f22d7969dad9d1d80d369c9d026@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonny Stirling <phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Move the phpng branch to master
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:51 PM
> To: Jonny Stirling
> Cc: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Move the phpng branch to master
>
>
> On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:47, Jonny Stirling <phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> > I love how you've just completely ignored any previous discussion
> > around the required majority issue.
>
> Has it really been *ignored*? Just because someone wants something
doesn't
> mean you have to give it.
>
> Under Zeev's (and as it so happens, my) interpretation of the voting
process
> RFC, this does not need a 2/3 majority. phpng is not a language change,
it is an
> implementation detail.

Fully agree with Andrea.  I don't think there's a point in debating the
majority question to no end, because ultimately, it's open for
interpretation.  I feel very, very confident about my interpretation - for
reasons I explained already.  I didn't ignore the feedback, I disagreed
with it.

> Now, could Zeev make it have a 2/3 majority to be less controversial?
Sure,
> but he doesn't have to.

I still stand by my original comment - that I hope and believe this RFC
will get well over 2/3 - but that it technically only requires a simple
majority.

Zeev