Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96977
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_m79Q3MuvvuhNcxiXF-ARJOW22eGJSoYMZBct6d_xxY3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL=_i_m79Q3MuvvuhNcxiXF-ARJOW22eGJSoYMZBct6d_xxY3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:58:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOsHV+uX+-HLZjPM0EUGd9WccvVrkNp0wkSgGyEt_62E3g4h4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f71ee96951054185738c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada)

--001a1143f71ee96951054185738c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2016-11-17 13:18 GMT-04:00 Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>:

> 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.
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
>
Hi Joe,

I fully support the change to always require super majority on all votings.

Sometimes RFCs don't contain a language change (by the criteria defined on
our wiki) but can contain BC breaks. I used to believe the RFC authors
would have the sensibility to always raise the bar higher in these cases,
but it's much better to change the system to enforce super majority IMMO.

About the requests to have 75%+1 votes, I believe raising the bar too high
could be damaging when entering a new major release in the future. But
perhaps RFC authors that stand for 75%+1 voting could propose RFCs with
that ratio instead of 2/3+1 if they think it's necessary.

PS: I wonder if the voting to change the process to always require 2/3+1
will be a 50%+1 poll? :P

Ty,
M=C3=A1rcio Almada.

--001a1143f71ee96951054185738c--