Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91032
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <58.11.35275.ADC3DA65@pb1.pair.com>
References: <6F.D4.55829.C14FCA65@pb1.pair.com> <CAF+90c8ojjKqHqZcOZbanji3YokoQQHmZFjxKRWyz_znNMb-hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <58.11.35275.ADC3DA65@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 11:42:18 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXZ6G7UxwOc8hijU+Y2H1m61NSSmMmrQX7AJNG=Eog5PrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Should we rethink the 50%+1 requirement
 fornon-"language changes"?
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

Hi Andrea,

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> Nikita Popov wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> 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.

I agree it's good to have 2/3 majority in all cases in general.

It means people who vote against a proposal have twice worth of vote
than supporters. It's ok to have twice value if the reason why he/she
opposed is solid, reasonable and disclosed. Disclosure is mandatory
for RFC improvement, what's missing - description and/or feature,
what's not preferred, what's the better way to do it, etc.

It's ok to reject a RFC by "I don't think it is not needed" for simple
additions like array_find_recursive() - it's imaginably RFC. However,
it is not ok for some change/addition like mine
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/precise_session_management
This RFC includes mandatory session management behaviors and not
disclosing why someone objects it, is not nice thing to see. Opposing
votes for "Precise Session Management" would mean most likely, "My
description was not good enough to be understood by everyone" or "Some
implementation is not preferred" or even "There are better ways to do
this".

2/3 majority sounds good, if people who against a proposal explicitly
disclose the reason why. Reasons for opposition are required for
RFC/implementation improvements if it is needed.

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net