On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, "Derick Rethans" <der...@php.net> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote: > > > > > On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > > > > > > > On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a > > > >> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds > > > >> *majority*. The RFC, like with many other important things is of > > > >> course too vague on this. > > > > > > The "+1" is only for 50% majorities. > > > > > > > > > > > An 8:8 vote is not a majority, no, but a 9:8 would be a 50%+1 > > > > majority. > > > > > > > > A 16:8 vote *is* a 2/3 majority. > > > > > > Yes, I think so, too. > > > > I disagree, but the main point was something else. > > Right, but what would be 2/3 of 24 votes for you then? > > > The "voting RFC" should be more clear on this. I don't think it is now. > > It's a pretty vague RFC in the first place, and leaves way too much > > open for interpretation. > > For? # of votes? > I have actually been working with several other people trying to come up with smarter rules for the way we work with RFCs. Undoubtably, confusion about what constitutes a "language change" is a huge issue. To be completely honest, I would prefer that we require 2/3 on all RFCs. PHP is a mature language; if we can't get 2/3 to agree on something it probably isn't good for the whole of the PHP project. I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with anyone who would like to try to improve the RFC process. Perhaps reply to me off-list if you are also interested.
