Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97014
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXamqt_E1LrZbUxPZpqCcJ29es8P3-0MEFWP7_0uuppy2Q@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> <CAGa2bXamqt_E1LrZbUxPZpqCcJ29es8P3-0MEFWP7_0uuppy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 22:26:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOsHV+uD_2u5A6E5zCopnXj7Zu1100awPi35zJ8tipp7bBON4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0870f4bc90aa05419e26a5
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada)

--94eb2c0870f4bc90aa05419e26a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2016-11-18 22:10 GMT-04:00 Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>:

> 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
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>


Hi Yasuo,

In my opinion, this belongs to another RFC. Please, propose an optional way
for voters to input a small paragraph disclosing a justification upon
voting. We've seen many voices on this mailing list supporting this
proposal, perhaps it's time to discuss officially. Keep in mind this change
in the voting process requires the voting doodle to be customized somehow
(I don't know how).

Best regards,
M=C3=A1rcio.

--94eb2c0870f4bc90aa05419e26a5--