Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96963 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71710 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2016 17:57:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Nov 2016 17:57:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.17.22 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.17.22] ([212.227.17.22:61077] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 52/60-04294-78FED285 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:57:27 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.190] ([79.243.119.150]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MBrCt-1bxldU0pDr-00AmFm; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:57:23 +0100 To: Joe Watkins , PHP internals References: Message-ID: <1ff261d9-129e-3b97-adf1-0e3e2aad280b@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:57:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:cnn8PNpZMzVkhCfvW46twzwly9qS27VS0QI/Br6cq2R3PS5GVdB 5AWD5u+UGZfrd6MLeHEhdsk8abzplj0PcYBWw5qztJbYEDtr52AAhUyELGgl+EPENTZ13Q3 W9icA2k41GvC67BGNhSrjkv5p62H0GUHX9TmW73eDa19ArJsaRC5SclZoRDczJJtqptep+V Tj3P0w6KAU5qAJy4ANA1A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:qBEpZ1ZkX3I=:dnhdlDEf+liKyQams3SR3a L4fnkPzgdmMnjaconSqEQDxTpCqxp3LXi5443LbiAmiW1DbhT+HXhpMsUBmf8S1q+2BBgf/Wt oB+HV3n0MGzyVGlqnhRsOzevhfJQUNuyexWH9akPpg1UKzSZCi6+Gw361AQFSTvDo9WJKGVwN VtgVZhELbnw+nzHFqcejuS5IJhkIBgwJVS2XsgxUzvAAAnfFOBDlPUrKp9PPFb1nngCJ6LuFS U5z8LXayYvR7Rd9tkvUAnv49DpGtHnwlZw2MaSL6EG5iRtS5F0hVSesFnBBUaVP1H+j990Kio S1IcQXCCF/d4aaIiRMavKRXAJ1i4WQliSbALp0LF0MyewVW4QENpQOlUrDn8xJ/772wv2a0S2 tWdaMOMLAQAru6FAv4nc0FcNLOhMxxir0KntVniOlb28OHSbVFtX9mz9EI7sACZcwV9Il77dh YjNS7CjHJe/s/x1SGlVe/MQs9IIGDe3NUgiQ9pGN5ID0v+WLwi60qsAtCLTOLBFWwUP1KEEYh C5cFn3OMCkFaauDhRqq7U+1ZlT5hZiCeadLuQYJJJ53aHvc0M5lVA+TWKoghZmW8rnn1oeLsy YLogKuHqvGcBfyZe8TQctny6xJ9B4LMbnH8Y47ID6x2Lyt1F8ovOojG5+ieum0cXAn1YeLfbu x8mTJ3SztmhCi20154eyhAE+47YJ4GR4HWZB32VOfDZwrkwbMXkLJKdyzka1lVhdXUj42uU6q AVnikBFtCnQdAQNzN3i/HxIF+kujue66t2mKibYxBWHrg+tiCXRJw6wzAeEBZkMwVanwhzI0O X9BjUQ8 Subject: Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker") On 17.11.2016 at 18:18, Joe Watkins wrote: > Afternoon internals, > > This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to > be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful. > > To what degree, I am not sure. > > I raise for discussion the topic of abolishing 50%+1 votes, and requiring > all changes regardless of their nature to pass by a super majority of > 2/3+1. > > Please read the (brief) RFC and raise objections here. > > There will be a one week discussion period for this RFC. Thans for the RFC, Joe. I'm all for it, but maybe we should raise the bar even higher (say, 75% as suggested by Dennis), and perhaps also introduce a required minimum of votes (to avoid that a single yes vote could decide over an RFC). Anyhow, I would suggest to rewrite the introduction section – a PHP RFC should better be concerned with PHP only. :-) -- Christoph M. Becker