Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84514 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32328 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2015 18:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Mar 2015 18:29:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=marcio.web2@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=marcio.web2@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: marcio.web2@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.53 mail-la0-f53.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.53] ([209.85.215.53:46760] helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5C/09-08808-F183FF45 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:29:52 -0500 Received: by labgm9 with SMTP id gm9so3651088lab.13 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:29:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=smR/+LaMSD6mzc9eZ6qNUy3MgtFz8rw08zUv7bpf0Bs=; b=cBMiPggws0dfIN+NonolrYbf3tw29AfFHCeLmeb/ozbiwleoFoBMJ3lH/xtePOLf4Z DTTJEgr16rF7WJxn8RpCezZqvgXqxarMJBfcUvhboWo3K1w9whfbkR93YUGADhC02iCK LJmcgwLhuu24XtSj0C7T0PcsEqwtdxnJ2Nlz6B4VXXqTzJiknzSK2krau+rlkiaQySu1 jiXGA3Z1ea+zhPblsk/YhuM397pG8waljpRpmf0Ys3GarUQrbl3I/FBiL9j1WV2mr8lW IWHTCXHw/I64gcZchGd5qZZGK9nE0pCoZn7OSj7vxuk5JAM5NuvKQFyBX0vqa07r3ZdZ MpBg== X-Received: by 10.112.198.1 with SMTP id iy1mr31923107lbc.13.1426012188414; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:29:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.118.169 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: marcio3w@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:29:27 -0300 Message-ID: To: Patrick ALLAERT Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c341acef987a0510f355c8 Subject: Re: Voting choice for language changes (Was: "Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count") From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada) --001a11c341acef987a0510f355c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, 2015-03-10 11:39 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT : > Hello, > > Le ven. 6 mars 2015 =C3=A0 00:44, Marcio Almada a > =C3=A9crit : >> >> You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide >> between E_WARNING (for consistency), E_DEPRECATED or E_STRICT. For me th= is >> is just a detail but maybe it's very important to others, so better to l= et >> each voter decide upon it. >> > > In case of language changes, shouldn't the 2/3 of majority be required at > any levels? > > I don't think it's possible. What would happen if the yes/no vote passes but the secondary vote doesn't reach 2/3 for some option? This would be a weird situation. > In situations like: > > Main feature: No/Yes > Option: A, B or C > > My gut feeling is that it would be better to rally a 2/3 majority of > people behind one of: > No / Yes (A) / Yes (B) / Yes (C) > in order to not dilute the importance of language changes. > > It would prevent accepting an important change where a lot of people > agrees on a general idea but have strong opinions/arguments on > implementation/details. > > Cheers, > Patrick > I think we should do some effort to discuss and discard as much options as possible so we can have max 2 options or maybe eliminate the secondary voting at all (which is the perfect scenario IMMO), but this requires a good absolute number of opinions. --001a11c341acef987a0510f355c8--