Re: [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics

On 23 Sep 2014, at 16:57, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote: > yeah, and when there is like 12 minutes between the last required vote casted and the vote > being casted(almost a day earlier), it is easy to jump to conclusions. The vote closing soon after the last vote was not a coincidence, but it’s the other way round from what you might think. That vote was deliberately made by them just before it was going to close (they asked me when I was going to close it), because they didn’t want it to fail by one vote. Had I not got that vote I’d still have closed it when I did, and it would have failed. > but putting that aside, what do we do now? > Personally I agree that it is a valid concern that some people could have missed the voting > period because of this: We already discussed recently that even a week is a bit short (anybody can > have a week of vacation etc.) but that is the minimum mandated by the voting rfc, and seeing how > close the vote was, I think it would be a good idea to extend the voting. > What do you think? > > ps: I would prefer not reverting the change to save some work/history obfuscation in case if > the result stays. If we’re re-opening things, let’s just hold the vote again, rather than extending the existing vote. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/