Re: Re: [RFC] Extended String Types For PDO

In On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote: > > > On 19 Mar 2017 19:01, "Levi Morrison" <levim@php.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 18/03/2017 13:38, Christoph M. Becker wrote: >>> >>> On 18.03.2017 at 12:29, Marco Pivetta wrote: >>> >>>> Wait, when was the vote opened? I didn't receive any notification of >>>> that >>>> (and therefore didn't vote yet), and we were still telling you in this >>>> thread that there are fundamental conceptual issues with the backing >>>> reasoning. >>> >>> Adam announced the vote on March, 8th, see >>> <http://news.php.net/php.internals/98447>. The >>> voting result was 8:1, >>> by the way. >>> >> >> I did think it was surprising that this RFC only had 9 votes registered, >> when the one I opened around the same time currently has 29, so I wonder >> if >> Marco wasn't the only one who overlooked it? >> >> However, I received the notification fine, and it was picked up by the SO >> chat bot, https://php-rfc-watch.beberlei.de/, etc, so it >> may just be that >> a >> lot of people were aware but decided to abstain. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Rowan Collins >> [IMSoP] >> >> >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > We currently do not have any provision for requiring at least a > certain amount of votes, but in my opinion it would be prudent to do > so for cases like this. With only *nine* contributors voting and it > not even being unanimous I feel like it shouldn't pass. Anyone who is > gathering notes for a voting rework proposal should take note. > > > I completely disagree with this. If there is not enough votes, it means that > poeple either don't care (possibly don't have time or don't read properly > mailing list) or don't understand the proposed thing. If this is the case then why on earth should it be in core? > I think it should up > to the maintainer to decide in such case and not to block a feature because > not enaugh people is interested in it. If it's up to the maintainer then it didn't need an RFC anyway.