On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > 94% of the votes voted in favor of integrating O+ into PHP, which is well > above 2/3, it’s almost 3/3.
44 for 5.5 + delay 22 for no delay (aka 5.6) 4 for not at all in the current sate Sorry but don't use numbers badly to cover your goals. > The only open question was about timeline. It is the main question, not the last open (there are many). > And no matter how we twist it, whether it happens now or in a year has > ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with whether or not it’s a language change. In > other words, if I phrased the RFC differently, and only asked who’s in > favor vs. who’s against – it would get a 94% vote in favor, > easily blowing > past both the 51% barrier as well as the 67% barrier. A 2nd RFC, asking > people to vote about the timeline – would have gotten 44 vs 22, which > happens to be 2/3, but clearly, would not have required more than 51% since > it’s a timeline question, not a language change question. It is clearly not as clear as you think. > I’m afraid that’s as far as I’m willing to play this game of bureaucracy. > The voting RFC wasn’t designed to turn PHP into The House, or a courtroom. > There’s absolutely NO WAY we can reach consensus, and there’s no way the > overwhelming majority would agree to paralysis imposed by a tiny minority. > Let’s put it to rest, we all have better things to do with our time. Yes, but what should be put on rest is not the RFCs process, which work out of the box for 99.99% but the way you habdle it and the total lack of respect for the different opinions raised here or on other lists. That'd to end at some point. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
