Re: [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics
| From: | Pierre Joye | Date: | Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:37:48 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-77466@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, "Derick Rethans" <derick@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> > On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
> > >> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
> > >> *majority*. The RFC, like with many other important things is of
> > >> course too vague on this.
> >
> > The "+1" is only for 50% majorities.
> >
> > >
> > > An 8:8 vote is not a majority, no, but a 9:8 would be a 50%+1
> > > majority.
> > >
> > > A 16:8 vote *is* a 2/3 majority.
> >
> > Yes, I think so, too.
>
> I disagree, but the main point was something else.
Right, but what would be 2/3 of 24 votes for you then?
> The "voting RFC" should be more clear on this. I don't think it is now.
> It's a pretty vague RFC in the first place, and leaves way too much
> open for interpretation.
For? # of votes?
> cheers,
> Derick