Re: [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP

On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote: > I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more comprehensive > section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the current convention. Another section > could be created to outline the other side. What we don't want is a situation where Zeev feels > compelled to write a competing RFC. That could get messy, so I think it'd be best if the two > of you could find enough common ground to make this RFC acceptable to both sides. Right. As I said, I’m willing to improve the Rationale section with suggestions, I just can’t think of many other arguments for at the moment. Perhaps I need to delve deeper and read some more previous discussions. I’m not in favour of the version skip, and though I can play devil’s advocate, I am not really very good at doing so here. I don’t dispute that the Rationale section could do with improvement. > > I'd also recommend that, since you're calling for a 2/3 vote, you specify more > clearly what it is that requires 2/3; breaking the current convention or keeping the current > convention? I'm guessing you probably meant the former, but the wording seemed a bit vague on > that point to me. I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about here, but to clarify: It is a 2/3 majority-required vote on whether or not the name should be PHP 6. That would be in line with the current convention of incrementing the major version number. I can see Zeev’s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also think 6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options). However, I don’t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just feels like too narrow of a majority. I suppose if that 6 yes/no vote fails, I might consider a 50%+1 6/7 vote. Bear in mind I proposed at some point recently that we use 2/3 for all votes. That was largely related to the 64bit RFC, but I still agree with the principle. To be honest, I may end up retreating at this point and just calling a 50%+1 before even running a 2/3 one. My problem with that is that I feel such a narrow majority would be too contentious and not end the discussion for good. Sadly, it is not realistic to hold a vote on the majority with which to vote. ;) -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/