On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 16:18, Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net> wrote: > Given apparently nobody has paid any attention to this email (both in terms > of my support of deprecating hebrevc(), and my request to reconsider > supporting proposals with substantial numbers of 'nay' voters) - I'm > resending it one more time for consideration: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:33 PM <z...@php.net> wrote: > > > Two separate topics on this message: > > > > > > > > First – I wanted to point out that my fierce defense of the hebrev() > > function does not in fact extend to hebrevc(). As much as I think the > RFC > > was really wrong about hebrev(), and we got scarily close to deprecating > a > > functionality that – while somewhat esoteric – can be extremely useful > > and cannot be easily replicated in any way – I have to say that I think > > the RFC is pretty much correct on hebrevc(). I don't think it's very > > plausible hebrevc() is still in use today – and even if we're missing > > something and it is – it can be implemented in a one liner with 100.00% > > compatibility. While I don't think it brings much value to deprecate it > – > > perhaps sending the message that you shouldn't be using it for HTML bears > > *some* level of value. I voted in favor. > > > > > > > > Now, with that said – I would *really* encourage everyone who voted on > > this RFC (as well as ones who haven't) to take a look at what I would > call > > the 'contentious votes' in there. In a nutshell, votes with a > substantial > > amount of people voting against the deprecation. If you voted 'yes' for > > one of these – please consider, for a moment, whether your position on it > > is "It's evil, I really think we're better off without it" or whether > it's > > more of a "I don't think it's very useful". If it's the former – by all > > means, keep your vote. But if it's the latter – please consider the > > possibility that the fact that a substantial number of people feel > strongly > > enough about keeping it to vote against the deprecation (and let's admit > it > > – against the odds), may mean it is, in fact, useful – even if you don't > > find it useful yourself. > > > > > > > > While we can argue whether consensus-based voting makes sense for votes > in > > general, I think it's tenfold more important when dealing with > > deprecations. If there's a substantial minority that thinks a feature is > > still useful – we should keep it – unless there's a real tangible cost > > associated with keeping it. For most of the proposed deprecations – that > > cost is simply not there. > > > > > > > > For reference, this is what consensus looks like: > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/asfgt98rss3xyw2/consensus.PNG?dl=0 > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/iia7ua4xh6bihe3/consensus2.PNG?dl=0 > > > > > > > > And this is what it doesn't look like: > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/56jdl2v1lpxba49/no-consensus.PNG?dl=0 > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/hj8jozuun7a4w42/no-consensus2.PNG?dl=0 > > > > > > > > To connect with the first point – the hebrevc() vote certainly looks a > > lot more like the latter than the former, but I do believe it's mostly > > related to confusion with hebrev() and as the author of both – I feel > > comfortable supporting its removal :) > > > > > > > > Thanks for your consideration, > > > > > > > > Zeev > > >
Hello Zeev, First of all it seems that you've mixed up your consensus2 and no-consesus2 files as they currently show the opposite of what you want to convey, I think. Secondly the word you are looking for here is "unanimity"/"unanimous" as per the Cambridge dictionary [1]: > *If a group of people are unanimous, they all agree about one particular > matter or vote the same way, and if a decision or judgment is unanimous, it > is formed or supported by everyone in a group* As consensus means, also from the Cambridge dictionary [2]: > *a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people* > Now unanimity implies consensus however not having a unanimous vote does not mean there is no consensus. Moreover, even though "consensus" does come from the Latin *cōnsēnsus* (“agreement, accordance, unanimity”) [3] it does not require unanimity IMHO. The RFC process establishes a consensus when 2/3 of the voters agree, which is currently the case. An argument could be made that this isn't a large enough consensus - something I don't agree with - however, at the time of writing this, all the deprecations even pass a 3/4 consensus [4]. Best regards George P. Banyard [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unanimous [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consensus [3] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consensus [4] https://php-rfc-watch.beberlei.de/
