Keep in mind that for example the FFI RFC passed with something like 60%
majority, even lower than this RFC. I think you're cherry-picking a bit
here, when it comes to what should and shouldn't pass ;)
You're right, but I think that's a price well worth paying (i.e., I'd be
absolutely fine if the FFI RFC did not pass, as well as some other RFCs I
was fond of, if it meant that controversial RFCs were a thing of the past -
at least in terms of passing).
Process wise we're in a bit of an unchartered territory here, but I don't
think we should let the headache involved with figuring out how to reverse
this decision force us to impose this on our users. It's better to go
through this unpleasantry now than deal with the backlash later.I think that process-wise (if we can't agree on landing some variation of
this, as I've suggested in a separate thread) the right thing to do would
be to draft a new RFC that overrules this one. It can lay out the new
arguments that have come up in the meantime in an orderly manner and be
voted separately.
If we go in this direction, though, then unless George agrees to withdraw
this RFC and have it replaced by another - it means that the 'status quo'
is that short tags are out, and there must be a 2/3 majority to undo that.
Where we stand - I don't think it's a very likely scenario. It's clear
there are many folks that want short tags gone - probably more so than
there are those who think they should stay (and not necessarily because
they love them).
Zeev