Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96987 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45608 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2016 11:06:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Nov 2016 11:06:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:36828] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 07/10-44904-AB0EE285 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:06:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 113129 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2016 11:06:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wm0-f43.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@74.125.82.43) by 0 with ESMTPA; 18 Nov 2016 11:06:30 -0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a197so30649055wmd.0 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 03:06:28 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01k5sKpN+3MuwP8MHwTExfrjaWWsoWWnTqTz6mdEIliD72O+9Ju+kRYHzNfdADHXijoTL8sXB2nhg2MsQ== X-Received: by 10.194.174.229 with SMTP id bv5mr5295999wjc.21.1479467181562; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 03:06:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.190.200 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 03:05:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:05:40 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Joe Watkins Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) Hi Joe, On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Joe Watkins wrote: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins Requiring 2/3 majority is reasonable. I'll vote yes for this if people who are not in favor disclose the reason why. Just voting "no" for a RFC is not constructive. Improving a RFC is difficult without reason why it is not preferred. Decision could be based on wrong assumption and/or misunderstanding sometimes. Could we have comment plugin for this? It does not have be to a comment plugin, if there is better plugin for the purpose. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net