On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> Hi Zeev, > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > > The RFC is available at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng > > > > > > > > Some supporting links available down below. > > > > > > > > Comments welcome! > > > > While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive ‘side effect’ of their apps running faster. So while we believe that technically a 50%+1 vote should suffice, we hope to get well over 2/3. If you're not going to delay this, then you should at very least clarify the wording in this section. You believe 50%+1 should suffice but hope to get well over 2/3. So is the *required* majority 50%+1 or 2/3? I should also point out that, according to the Voting RFC, whether or not an RFC "actually affects end users in any meaningful way" is NOT a factor in determining whether a 2/3 supermajority is required or not. Here's what it actually states: > For these reasons, a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax for example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the votes. Other RFCs require 50% + 1 votes to get 'accepted'. Since the phpng RFC already acknowledges that it affects the language itself, this is clearly a 2/3 requirement situation. Whether it affects end-users or not is irrelevant. Under current rules, your RFC must have 2/3 support in order to pass. As such, I ask that you at least update the wording to make it clear that 2/3 *is* required for the RFC to pass in order to avoid confusion when it comes to a vote. I still think you should hold-off until these other issues of dispute are resolved, though. But that's your choice. I simply ask that you fix the required majority section to make it in compliance with current voting rules. --Kris
