Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90608 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26960 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2016 14:52:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jan 2016 14:52:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:45367] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5F/23-10601-FA466965 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:52:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABF86E20F0; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:52:28 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:52:28 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Zeev Suraski cc: Bob Weinand , PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <373698cabe053cb9bec8e1f6dc969906@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote: > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobwei9@hotmail.com] > > > > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support". > > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most > > restrictive schedule as a result. > > (Interpreting it like "you need 50%+1 of the total to get it extended so far".) > > > > Hence Security Support until Dec 31 2017. > > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and very clearly so: > "In case the majority chooses to extend the lifetime of PHP 5.6 (>50%) - then the option garnering more votes between the two proposed timelines would win." > > I'm not sure what the situation would have been had we truly had a 23/23 split, probably a revote or an extended voting period, but the current situation is very well defined under the RFC terms. Not that I particularly care about this outcome, but there were only "42" Yes votes, and "2" No votes. As the voting says for the second part "ONLY IF YOU CHOSE 'YES' ABOVE: ", there should only be 42 votes in the second part, and not 44 like there are now (21+23)... so there is something wonky. I would recommend, not to do split votes like this anymore. It's just too confusing IMO. cheers, Derick