Hi Nikita,
Nikita Popov wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote:
I'm definitely in favor of requiring a 2/3 majority in all cases. An RFC
that passes with 51:50 votes is clearly not an RFC that a consensus exists
on. On the contrary, it indicates a very controversial change which
requires further deliberation.
This is a good point. If something can only pass with the 50%+1 rule,
that's not a point in its favour.
Furthermore requiring a consistent quota for all RFCs will avoid the
inevitable bickering that seems to spring up with many "major" RFCs, about
whether or not a 2/3 vote is required in a particular instance. For RFCs
that are significant, but not clear language changes (like the PHP 7 naming
RFC, or the phpng RFC, or the int size RFC), there's always a dozen or two
mails in the discussion devoted to this most important of questions.
This does make me wonder if we might need some language to allow
exceptions to the rule. In the case of the PHP 6/7 vote, for example, it
had to be 50%+1 to avoid giving either side an unfair advantage. But
that wasn't really a normal RFC, anyway. An RFC contains a proposal for
a specific change and a vote is held on whether to accept it or not. The
6/7 RFC was a vote between two opposing proposals presented in the same
RFC, with no option to vote against. It was more of a referendum than
anything else. I'm not sure how to handle cases like that.
Thanks for your reply.
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
