Re: Should we rethink the 50%+1 requirement fornon-"language changes"?

Morning internalz, RFC's aren't a good fit for changing procedure, but it's all we have. This should be the first non-language change RFC that requires a 2/3 majority, I think. +1 from me anyway, good points have already been made. Cheers Joe On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > Nikita Popov wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > >> > >> I'm definitely in favor of requiring a 2/3 majority in all cases. An RFC > >> that passes with 51:50 votes is clearly not an RFC that a consensus > exists > >> on. On the contrary, it indicates a very controversial change which > >> requires further deliberation. > > > > > > This is a good point. If something can only pass with the 50%+1 rule, > that's > > not a point in its favour. > > I agree it's good to have 2/3 majority in all cases in general. > > It means people who vote against a proposal have twice worth of vote > than supporters. It's ok to have twice value if the reason why he/she > opposed is solid, reasonable and disclosed. Disclosure is mandatory > for RFC improvement, what's missing - description and/or feature, > what's not preferred, what's the better way to do it, etc. > > It's ok to reject a RFC by "I don't think it is not needed" for simple > additions like array_find_recursive() - it's imaginably RFC. However, > it is not ok for some change/addition like mine > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/precise_session_management > This RFC includes mandatory session management behaviors and not > disclosing why someone objects it, is not nice thing to see. Opposing > votes for "Precise Session Management" would mean most likely, "My > description was not good enough to be understood by everyone" or "Some > implementation is not preferred" or even "There are better ways to do > this". > > 2/3 majority sounds good, if people who against a proposal explicitly > disclose the reason why. Reasons for opposition are required for > RFC/implementation improvements if it is needed. > > Regards, > > -- > Yasuo Ohgaki > yohgaki@ohgaki.net > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >