Re: [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform improvements...)

> Am 18.05.2014 um 08:13 schrieb Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>: > > A few things: > > > > - We’re talking about 66%, not %66+1 (i.e., 20 against 10 means a > Yes, 19 against 10 means a no). Just to be mathematically clear and to avoid confusion: We are talking about a 2/3 majority meaning 66.66% not 66%. That means 66 against 34 means no even though it's 66%. Perhaps that's where the 66%+1 comes from. Can't we simply talk of 2/3 to avoid any confusion? Cheers Andreas > > - Nobody is arguing that language changes like annotations will be > decided by ‘Core’. It’s open to everyone who has a right to vote according > to the RFC process. Note that presently, people who are allowed to vote > technically don’t actually have a right to vote based on the Voting RFC, > which requires not only an SVN account, but also actual code contributions > to the PHP project; This was a known issue when we rolled out the voting > mechanism, but this limitation of the voting mechanism doesn’t change the > who’s eligible to vote. > > - I am arguing (as well as a few others) that implementation changes > – ones without a meaningful impact on the userbase at large, should be > decided by the respective developers of the code portion in question. > Annotations don’t fall under that category; Changing internal data > structures does, and so does changing a documentation platform or > implementation inside some PECL module. This isn’t simple to define but > I’m going to try and draft something up, probably based on the the Karma > assignment. Again, this will *not* impact people’s right to vote on the > vast majority of RFCs out there, which are almost always about features and > functions, and rarely about implementation. I still argue that the RFC > process was never meant to be about implementation, it was so outside the > scope of the RFC process that I didn’t even think about this possibility > when I helped drafted it. > > > > Zeev > > > > *From:* guilhermeblanco@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermeblanco@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, May 18, 2014 7:58 AM > *To:* Kris Craig > *Cc:* Daniel Convissor; Ferenc Kovacs; Zeev Suraski; Nikita Popov; PHP > Internals > *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform > improvements...) > > > > Hi, > > Let's reiterate this over... 66%+1 of voting members and not 66%+1 of core > members. Is that right? > > I really want this to be fixed, because Annotations for 66%+1 of voting > members, but not of core member and it got rejected. > > Just to make things sure... I don't wanna hear about meritocracy again. > > Cheers, > > > > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Convissor < > danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote: > >> Folks: >> >>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:12:18AM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: >>> I think it still mandates a 66%+1 vote. >> >> Agreed. This is a major change. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> --Dan >> >> -- >> T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y >> data intensive web and database programming >> http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I agree that it should have been, but under the current language of the > voting RFC, it can also be reasonably interpreted to call for a simple > majority. The RFC author chose to go with simple majority and left it > there. Trying to change the requirement mid-vote would be far more > troubling, in my view. Instead, we should discuss clarifying that language > in the voting RFC so that the interpretation is not so subjective in the > future. > > --Kris > > > > > -- > Guilherme Blanco > MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com > GTalk: guilhermeblanco > Toronto - ON/Canada -- Andreas Heigl Andreas@heigl.org