Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98591
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAFGhPhb5DSirS_-7T2xbnZs7wi50TahT6+prWv26US=zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADxrgCP4Mt=Jh_zi2qOXEyt2DTbnDFUb2gkxHg8NgeECL5j8_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADxrgCNsAOcdsi1e6QJbQYPn4NM_aBKWh_EHV37cA7OviTpHFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sKw5FUd1-kP3CWYfMBdTdGKN8fc7GSvtgFin5yYE-H_gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <15fa63cb-6ca6-b809-20b8-5b0e2d357b29@gmx.de> <1304f0ec-2957-2fd0-070e-9f096e3fbb6a@gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4Nraq91MZHWNoGTzcothTGcZJSFHYkNttt7CKR5=kH-LQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEKnhAFGhPhb5DSirS_-7T2xbnZs7wi50TahT6+prWv26US=zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 13:51:14 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4No2o7fZTzf4j3DX3Y-sdNVxt5GVrsvRviGn=B+=QJM-KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

In

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2017 19:01, "Levi Morrison" <levim@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 18/03/2017 13:38, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18.03.2017 at 12:29, Marco Pivetta wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wait, when was the vote opened? I didn't receive any notification of
>>>> that
>>>> (and therefore didn't vote yet), and we were still telling you in this
>>>> thread that there are fundamental conceptual issues with the backing
>>>> reasoning.
>>>
>>> Adam announced the vote on March, 8th, see
>>> <http://news.php.net/php.internals/98447>.  The voting result was 8:1,
>>> by the way.
>>>
>>
>> I did think it was surprising that this RFC only had 9 votes registered,
>> when the one I opened around the same time currently has 29, so I wonder
>> if
>> Marco wasn't the only one who overlooked it?
>>
>> However, I received the notification fine, and it was picked up by the SO
>> chat bot, https://php-rfc-watch.beberlei.de/, etc, so it may just be that
>> a
>> lot of people were aware but decided to abstain.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Rowan Collins
>> [IMSoP]
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> We currently do not have any provision for requiring at least a
> certain amount of votes, but in my opinion it would be prudent to do
> so for cases like this. With only *nine* contributors voting and it
> not even being unanimous I feel like it shouldn't pass. Anyone who is
> gathering notes for a voting rework proposal should take note.
>
>
> I completely disagree with this. If there is not enough votes, it means that
> poeple either don't care (possibly don't  have time or don't  read properly
> mailing list) or don't understand the proposed thing.

If this is the case then why on earth should it be in core?

> I think it should up
> to the maintainer to decide in such case and not to block a feature because
> not enaugh people is interested in it.

If it's up to the maintainer then it didn't need an RFC anyway.