Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84512
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: marcio3w@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nGioWnCRgqkhYH8S9Guvxo=-Jpy3XrarJ8eirb9tfLdqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOsHV+uApxF=pQngonMppam2AEnW0Sm1ESAaB9exLH0K0hMBWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXYx-MGjhHVkDRYsHSRR4b+x4ba5PVxdhw9W2B1z0fWCEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+td_i5Z3JPmPF5WT8gAvhPFReO28L3TGPaYWgybSVnbSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXbgDcjXWgoDw_X61KDbeiV_tcHpGk5RFSFsnQ1-LSNVPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+tY4CmLD6tYt7R9eiNkBb9ibh4sjAVD0oysJTCuTY25Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXYtbhOg4XqniTtZj-rz-E7cc=C1cmqGSmphLmbN+cqASA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+vhvYD5JoyuKQOOmDzbN0rurGX58eMuRjn4cmH3H9gvsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXa0=gZ=+5oSWp-kRBpWXoozHEdJb1-nuKN9r6RmGZj8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOsHV+vjPxFZhN-OH8+5S57tK_P_G80B+HujXy07zeExOEMNVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACwt+JdxCF=F-PzPtGsZJb0WapEzZk--Qb2CvMaowxr4m8-htw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nEZBasQuePh_P+GRwWOCc+WvPF1Cj6rH7KVB6UkO+EHxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuSMte70h0HwXHhrvftXQAMJgWHs-eicWhRw8K7kf9ELeA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nGioWnCRgqkhYH8S9Guvxo=-Jpy3XrarJ8eirb9tfLdqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:15:54 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOsHV+s0fw8Om27V4+BvxZ0OqC2F_noNvc0QjN9MhAQhKuvyhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>, 
	Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134df9669041b0510f3258a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting choice for language changes (Was: "Re:
 [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count")
From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada)

--001a1134df9669041b0510f3258a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2015-03-10 13:52 GMT-03:00 Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>:

> Dan,
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
> wrote:
> > On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> 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
>
> In this case, a straw-poll ahead of time for "with or without" could
> have solved that. Or just choosing one.
>
> But in more complex situations it doesn't need to be competing RFCs,
> but a RFC for the main thing, and a RFC to choose which option. This
> case (with/without "\") isn't what I was referring to. I was talking
> more about situations like:
>
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/error_handler_callback_parameters_passed_by_reference#vote
>
> Specifically where the options have pretty significant difference in
> potential functionality.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote
>
> Here, enabled/disabled by default, and the namespace?
>
> The namespace is a pretty significant concern. I believe that the RFC
> should have taken a stance on it. But if it didn't want to, it could
> split it off into its own proposal. So you'd have RFC#1: add pecl_http
> to core, and RFC#2: change pecl_http to use the php\ namespace prefix.
>
> By splitting it apart it's a lot clearer what's going on, and the
> impact of the decision can be weighed.
>
> If I was doing the proposal though, I would make a single RFC that
> takes a stance (picks one). Then let the discussion guide the change.
> If people really feel that another option is better, it will become
> clear, so the RFC can be updated.  That's the point of discussion, no?
>
>
Yes, that is the point of discussion. But, unfortunately, a lot of RFCs
only start to get discussed when the voting is open. I don't know why this
happens, but it's a pattern I've been observing for some time. In general,
I agree with you, we should make some effort to eliminate voting options
during discussion phase, or at least reduce the options to a minimum amount.


> Anthony
>

--001a1134df9669041b0510f3258a--