Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98592
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
Sender: jakub.php@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAFqmK6KehviTLyPzQvrPb=ZR58Md7kSSkaxWKvCs4c8CQ@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>
 <CAFMT4No2o7fZTzf4j3DX3Y-sdNVxt5GVrsvRviGn=B+=QJM-KQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEKnhAFqmK6KehviTLyPzQvrPb=ZR58Md7kSSkaxWKvCs4c8CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:09:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAEZ43Os-mE8rovVwX5Di2MG8O6hiomTZrwWb2d=ZS5r7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114db90c12f241054b1bd469
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--001a114db90c12f241054b1bd469
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 19 Mar 2017 19:51, "Levi Morrison" <levim@php.net> wrote:

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 actually mean voters when I say people in this case. Just the fact that
voters don't care about this feature doesn't mean that it's not useful.
What I want to say is that not enaough interest from voters or even
contributors shouldn't block the proposed feature.

> 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.


Well I'm not saying it's up to the maintainers. I just think it should up
to the maintainers to decide such things. Anyway it's already the case that
there isn't any reason for having a vote if there are no objections.
However there were some objections in this case. So I understand why there
was a vote. Just the fact there wasn't  enough people voting against it
says to me that the objections are not really relevant and the feature
should be accepted. Especially if it's proposed one of the PDO related core
extension mantainer. It means that having some required limit on number of
voters to accept RFC seems like a really bad idea to me.

Cheers

Jakub

--001a114db90c12f241054b1bd469--