Morning internalz,
RFC's aren't a good fit for changing procedure, but it's all we have.
This should be the first non-language change RFC that requires a 2/3
majority, I think.
+1 from me anyway, good points have already been made.
Cheers
Joe
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
