Hi Andrea, On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > 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.
I agree it's good to have 2/3 majority in all cases in general. It means people who vote against a proposal have twice worth of vote than supporters. It's ok to have twice value if the reason why he/she opposed is solid, reasonable and disclosed. Disclosure is mandatory for RFC improvement, what's missing - description and/or feature, what's not preferred, what's the better way to do it, etc. It's ok to reject a RFC by "I don't think it is not needed" for simple additions like array_find_recursive() - it's imaginably RFC. However, it is not ok for some change/addition like mine https://wiki.php.net/rfc/precise_session_management This RFC includes mandatory session management behaviors and not disclosing why someone objects it, is not nice thing to see. Opposing votes for "Precise Session Management" would mean most likely, "My description was not good enough to be understood by everyone" or "Some implementation is not preferred" or even "There are better ways to do this". 2/3 majority sounds good, if people who against a proposal explicitly disclose the reason why. Reasons for opposition are required for RFC/implementation improvements if it is needed. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
