Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84507 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11896 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2015 15:45:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Mar 2015 15:45:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=danack@basereality.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=danack@basereality.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basereality.com from 209.85.213.50 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: danack@basereality.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.50 mail-yh0-f50.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.50] ([209.85.213.50:46458] helo=mail-yh0-f50.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5D/45-08808-B911FF45 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:45:32 -0500 Received: by yhoc41 with SMTP id c41so1224250yho.13 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:45:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=r/bq5h20IY/53TUirm4ZndFz7xVbaMZLfU2n/z4KAjA=; b=kk6G99PeGImUr0k5+dV2yeWAGA7EWA5U+QWb5NvYHT928FVq1Ebp8AKjbhivCYeAiU uIMQc5l5OrINnix3ET9ZNtkNGH33uz4C3KsrDUSa330X7Stvj7exrN/cR6lDsoJ79yYE xal3B3KxQqQMmNzEEf6sGcz0uP4yFQs/e7GTLNHrVPwHEEBbgTfyqf7xyNB2EIJxg/9S jNTQ/rHlMKXQtMeAtZJmu5Zor6U9Doklsr8n6Cimziv1hesO4Chu4go0KGfTLpcEIoK4 sQsSRNcK9lXML2IrZcznXyOfg3XLPD2MxeGZpy1vx2VHtjpVYMVcQbeqD6IPGXsQBtjh JFkw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmziny/PnLq6Lbpb/48OqycJvBbtRmeUio12XzKt4Ex1SX9PPefciADv8S8knDDzhe0kVb MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.79.4 with SMTP id v4mr11143946ykv.17.1426002328833; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.71.86 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:45:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2.98.214.239] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:45:28 +0000 Message-ID: To: Anthony Ferrara Cc: Patrick ALLAERT , marcio3w@gmail.com, Yasuo Ohgaki , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting choice for language changes (Was: "Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count") From: danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no? > It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility > of gaming. While I generally agree, in the case where there is a small detail that needs to be addresses by a vote, I think having two votes in one RFC is better than having two almost identical RFCs. However the question that is being voted on needs to be setup properly so that it does not prevent people from being able to vote on both issues. For example the group use RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations) has a small detail of whether there should be a trailing slash in the syntax, which did not deserve a separate RFC imo. Unfortunately, the vote options were: - Yes - with a trailing "\" - Yes - without a trailing "\" - No This meant it was impossible for people who wanted to vote no to the general idea, to say what was their preferred choice of syntax. The questions and voting choices should have been: "Should Grouped Use Declarations be added to PHP 7" - Yes - No "If added, should the syntax be with trailing "\" or without." - With a trailing "\" - Without a trailing "\" This would have allowed all voters to express their intent for both parts of the question, without being forced to vote 'yes' if they want a say in the exact syntax used. cheers Dan Ack