On 19 Mar 2017 19:01, "Levi Morrison" <le...@php.net> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/03/2017 13:38, Christoph M. Becker wrote: >> >> On 18.03.2017 at 12:29, Marco Pivetta wrote: >> >>> Wait, when was the vote opened? I didn't receive any notification of that >>> (and therefore didn't vote yet), and we were still telling you in this >>> thread that there are fundamental conceptual issues with the backing >>> reasoning. >> >> Adam announced the vote on March, 8th, see >> <http://news.php.net/php.internals/98447>. The voting result was 8:1, >> by the way. >> > > I did think it was surprising that this RFC only had 9 votes registered, > when the one I opened around the same time currently has 29, so I wonder if > Marco wasn't the only one who overlooked it? > > However, I received the notification fine, and it was picked up by the SO > chat bot, https://php-rfc-watch.beberlei.de/, etc, so it may just be that a > lot of people were aware but decided to abstain. > > Regards, > > -- > Rowan Collins > [IMSoP] > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php We currently do not have any provision for requiring at least a certain amount of votes, but in my opinion it would be prudent to do so for cases like this. With only *nine* contributors voting and it not even being unanimous I feel like it shouldn't pass. Anyone who is gathering notes for a voting rework proposal should take note. I completely disagree with this. If there is not enough votes, it means that poeple either don't care (possibly don't have time or don't read properly mailing list) or don't understand the proposed thing. I think it shousld up to the maintainer to decide in such case and not to block a feature because not enaugh people is interested in it. But even if we leave it as it is (accept it with only few votes) it is still much better than block it if there is no interest.
