> The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and very clearly so:
So what !? The terms are clearly biased towards the longest support period if "no, I don't want to extend support period" is going to be taken to mean "yes, extend the support period using the longest option" ... Whatever, the options don't make sense ... Cheers Joe On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM > > To: Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> > > Cc: Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>; PHP internals > > <internals@lists.php.net> > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline > > > > I agree, > > > > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support". > > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most > > restrictive schedule as a result. > > (Interpreting it like "you need 50%+1 of the total to get it extended so > far".) > > > > Hence Security Support until Dec 31 2017. > > Bob, > > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented > ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and > very clearly so: > "In case the majority chooses to extend the lifetime of PHP 5.6 (>50%) - > then the option garnering more votes between the two proposed timelines > would win." > > I'm not sure what the situation would have been had we truly had a 23/23 > split, probably a revote or an extended voting period, but the current > situation is very well defined under the RFC terms. > > Thanks, > > Zeev > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
