Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91041
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.160.180 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXZ6G7UxwOc8hijU+Y2H1m61NSSmMmrQX7AJNG=Eog5PrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6F.D4.55829.C14FCA65@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAF+90c8ojjKqHqZcOZbanji3YokoQQHmZFjxKRWyz_znNMb-hQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<58.11.35275.ADC3DA65@pb1.pair.com>
	<CAGa2bXZ6G7UxwOc8hijU+Y2H1m61NSSmMmrQX7AJNG=Eog5PrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:31:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_k7u8mcGM68WrD=h7SPtSDfR2iG9E97YCqoVnfauUVFhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149d3d8d9b87a052aaf88e4
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Should we rethink the 50%+1 requirement
 fornon-"language changes"?
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--001a1149d3d8d9b87a052aaf88e4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Morning internalz,

    RFC's aren't a good fit for changing procedure, but it's all we have.

    This should be the first non-language change RFC that requires a 2/3
majority, I think.

    +1 from me anyway, good points have already been made.

Cheers
Joe

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a1149d3d8d9b87a052aaf88e4--