Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97012
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_nP66DNzYntUcA=9bzUyp8AeMkwVPZAmUXFqLvS9Q8tEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL=_i_m79Q3MuvvuhNcxiXF-ARJOW22eGJSoYMZBct6d_xxY3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_kLzJ0ak6pEPVOGMst1+dmVTZQOwmwUAoi1bi07AqU7DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXYRkUtpU9fqxabTS3K3LYNGywh8e--UNbEWD83fO7-xGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL=_i_nP66DNzYntUcA=9bzUyp8AeMkwVPZAmUXFqLvS9Q8tEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 11:10:28 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXamqt_E1LrZbUxPZpqCcJ29es8P3-0MEFWP7_0uuppy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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 Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
> I think most people would be happy to provide a reason, if you have it
> listed.
> It should be listed, because it should have been brought up during
> discussion.
>
> Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, and you may get lots of no votes
> still that don't provide a reason.

There are clear cases that people misunderstand proposals.

Recent example is PRNG adoption for uniqid(). I proposed patch does
not have any BC, but there were people opposed based on false FUD.
i.e. RPNG device access causes  access error which is _nothing_ to do
with internal function.

Another example is session ID validation. It is mandatory to keep
session as secure as possible, yet there are some people do not
realize(?) why it is mandatory. There is workaround, but I haven't
seen implementation does it correctly. I would rather just fix the
issue rather than trying to teach how to do it.

Anyway, regardless of opposition is reasonable or not, disclosing the
reason why it is not preferred is valuable. Could you at least state
in the RFC that all voters who are not in favor of the proposal should
disclose the reason?

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net