Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77485
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain margaine.com from 209.85.213.169 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NpE9HMrHNpqm23a8cFNkN1WfuB0ocjxfWQOUoqZcyLePQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B08F027B-EACA-42A1-BAFD-8B0FB3135016@ajf.me> <4D27A10E-6EC6-4806-94DB-1BF1B976CA7D@ajf.me>
 <CABBJUpf1jiZ9vs7MSvKXiC7J-=SD026YdW5XLHQ1vQ+nt6wpZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F6E6CDD3-A81D-44ED-B607-CFB4A7C98211@ajf.me> <CABBJUpfW0+H_KstZ0j42YQTFCqZKf5OxyBnVY0-iRMUiC1sCng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6fMgbDACUPy+LDqprBKE28qV2R1DfumyteaOTGe9hCBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABBJUpenAoQmDyvs5tNejnwH7raqHEm48jn8oXmokQMf7Yta9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU5b9Rr0D5=cvqQKZrvFtUddgjQNnFxhJ8a-ZRRNmm2_eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPg3XxKSxz1bgC+6dmOVFuJsfUHwg8khu7jq_WPxpshifMurWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <600A7E27-7E6F-4ECF-805F-D62814AA3AB2@ajf.me> <CAPg3XxJE7M5DC+rXoF7KobCeVp3_n0k4Kjpn=O0ipBfegim_8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6wZFWkkheakY4FUr=gGi3Fwi5NReauPAoZoR3TDqBV5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPg3Xx+Jsy6ms6Ypabg6fMd-DMEtR431cKofxTyqdqe8QKO6SQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1409221201010.4267@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CD6942FA-7A72-46AB-97EF-914042ECCF6F@ajf.me> <5420198C.4070209@php.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1409221430060.4267@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAEZPtU5eHzgStfY+GjV-J6FCDg3pPeodTfwcDPT+BtsWbMf6aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4NpE9HMrHNpqm23a8cFNkN1WfuB0ocjxfWQOUoqZcyLePQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:11:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CABRjmp8HWEJ53K4qtCfCzJWTpHqYyn9nENf4ovgubo5PcEPdvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>, 
	Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015383340c29bc0503ad110f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics
From: florian@margaine.com (Florian Margaine)

--089e015383340c29bc0503ad110f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

Just a side remark: from an external point of view, it seems like you need
an application to handle the RFCs. An application with a strict business
logic, which leaves no ambiguity as to when and how an RFC should be valid.

The "what" is more ambiguous however, and I'm not sure as to how it should
be handled.

Regards,

*Florian Margaine*

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, "Derick Rethans" <derick@php.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
> > > > >> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
> > > > >> *majority*. The RFC, like with many other important things is of
> > > > >> course too vague on this.
> > > >
> > > > The "+1" is only for 50% majorities.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > An 8:8 vote is not a majority, no, but a 9:8 would be a 50%+1
> > > > > majority.
> > > > >
> > > > > A 16:8 vote *is* a 2/3 majority.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I think so, too.
> > >
> > > I disagree, but the main point was something else.
> >
> > Right, but what would be 2/3 of 24 votes for you then?
> >
> > > The "voting RFC" should be more clear on this. I don't think it is now.
> > > It's a pretty vague RFC in the first place, and leaves way too much
> > > open for interpretation.
> >
> > For? # of votes?
> >
>
> I have actually been working with several other people trying to come up
> with smarter rules for the way we work with RFCs. Undoubtably, confusion
> about what constitutes a "language change" is a huge issue. To be
> completely honest, I would prefer that we require 2/3 on all RFCs. PHP is a
> mature language; if we can't get 2/3 to agree on something it probably
> isn't good for the whole of the PHP project.
>
> I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread
> hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with
> anyone who would like to try to improve the RFC process. Perhaps reply to
> me off-list if you are also interested.
>

--089e015383340c29bc0503ad110f--