Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91025
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain joeconstant.com from 209.85.220.54 cause and error)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-5F880444-CD71-48B0-973C-594B38A0BEE5
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAFXDxKUCV_d+kcxduq24h62Lq8Q2ZCmK2bCE9_b4heHhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:37:41 -0700
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>,
 PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <CAFF60CA-C560-4762-B6B6-F1E8AA247DE6@joeconstant.com>
References: <6F.D4.55829.C14FCA65@pb1.pair.com> <FD83CB87-9CD4-49A9-8D84-6D5C05BE1E9D@joeconstant.com> <CAEKnhAFXDxKUCV_d+kcxduq24h62Lq8Q2ZCmK2bCE9_b4heHhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Should we rethink the 50%+1 requirement for non-"language changes"?
From: joe@joeconstant.com (Joe Constant)

--Apple-Mail-5F880444-CD71-48B0-973C-594B38A0BEE5
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>P.S. Please don't top post... ;)
I'm not trying to thread hijack. Just trying to add to the discussion. The o=
ps post was in regards to RFCs passing to easily. My contention with the low=
 voter turnout is in line (or at least intended to be in line) with that.=20=


>> It's often a specific feature for extension so moving everything to PECL i=
s not really an option.
My argument is that if it affects core, a certain percentage of voting membe=
rs (people that have taken on the responsibility of directing the future of c=
ore) should be required to vote. I understand that they may not be intereste=
d, but if the voter turnout is really that low, the proponents should be doi=
ng more to drum up interest rather than simply allowing an RFC to pass.=20


Joe Constant

On Jan 30, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:


On 30 Jan 2016 18:07, "Joe Constant" <joe@joeconstant.com> wrote:
>
> As someone who has never participated with intervals before and only just r=
ecently subscribed to the list, I would like to see a minimum percentage of v=
oting members participating in a vote for something to pass. In my interpret=
ation of the current rules, a measure could pass with only 3 votes cast (2 f=
or / 1 against). In fact, there was a recent proposal that passed with only 1=
1 votes cast. If that few of voting members are participating, maybe the pro=
posal wasn't clear enough (or maybe it's just not needed at all)?  Sure you c=
an argue that they had ample time to discuss, but I would say perhaps they j=
ust saw no value in it. If a proposal isn't offering enough value for the gr=
eater community, maybe it doesn't belong in core and should be either a pecl=
 extension or userland code?
>

I disagree with this. The fact that not many people voted doesn't mean that t=
he feature is not important.  Some RFC are very technical and about specific=
 topics that not many voters is interested in. However it can be important f=
or some users and shouldn't be rejected just because there are not enough vo=
tes even if the majority is in favour. It's often a specific feature for ext=
ension so moving everything to PECL is not really an option.

P.S. Please don't top post... ;)

Cheers

Jakub=

--Apple-Mail-5F880444-CD71-48B0-973C-594B38A0BEE5--