Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98593
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.181 as permitted sender)
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>
To: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <3aa0cb2a-4142-046e-d69f-b5481384099b@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:18:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAFGhPhb5DSirS_-7T2xbnZs7wi50TahT6+prWv26US=zw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 19/03/2017 19:32, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> 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.

Yes, those are the most likely reasons. There is also the possibility 
that for some technical or timing reason people missed the announcement.


> I think it shousld up to the maintainer to decide in such case and not 
> to block a feature because not enaugh people is interested in it.

There is currently nobody authorised to make that decision, and granting 
it to extension maintainers feels like a significant change to that 
role. As I understand it, one of the big differences between a PECL 
extension and a bundled one is that once in core, it's subject to 
decision-making by the whole project, not the authors of the code.


> But even if we leave it as it is (accept it with only few votes) it is 
> still much better than block it if there is no interest.

The entire RFC and voting process assumes that "no change" is the 
default option - a language change requires two-thirds to make the 
change, not two-thirds to reject it. If there were a "quorum" rule, it 
would be entirely consistent for not enough votes to have the same 
effect as an insufficiently large majority, and reject the change.

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]