Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91030 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 41714 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2016 22:44:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jan 2016 22:44:42 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 94.13.91.147 unknown Received: from [94.13.91.147] ([94.13.91.147:19773] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 58/11-35275-ADC3DA65 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:44:42 -0500 Message-ID: <58.11.35275.ADC3DA65@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: <6F.D4.55829.C14FCA65@pb1.pair.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:44:38 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 94.13.91.147 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Should we rethink the 50%+1 requirement fornon-"language changes"? From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi Nikita, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > I'm definitely in favor of requiring a 2/3 majority in all cases. An RFC > that passes with 51:50 votes is clearly not an RFC that a consensus exists > on. On the contrary, it indicates a very controversial change which > requires further deliberation. This is a good point. If something can only pass with the 50%+1 rule, that's not a point in its favour. > Furthermore requiring a consistent quota for all RFCs will avoid the > inevitable bickering that seems to spring up with many "major" RFCs, about > whether or not a 2/3 vote is required in a particular instance. For RFCs > that are significant, but not clear language changes (like the PHP 7 naming > RFC, or the phpng RFC, or the int size RFC), there's always a dozen or two > mails in the discussion devoted to this most important of questions. This does make me wonder if we might need some language to allow exceptions to the rule. In the case of the PHP 6/7 vote, for example, it had to be 50%+1 to avoid giving either side an unfair advantage. But that wasn't really a normal RFC, anyway. An RFC contains a proposal for a specific change and a vote is held on whether to accept it or not. The 6/7 RFC was a vote between two opposing proposals presented in the same RFC, with no option to vote against. It was more of a referendum than anything else. I'm not sure how to handle cases like that. Thanks for your reply. -- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/