On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more 
> comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the 
> current convention.  Another section could be created to outline the other 
> side.  What we don't want is a situation where Zeev feels compelled to write 
> a competing RFC.  That could get messy, so I think it'd be best if the two of 
> you could find enough common ground to make this RFC acceptable to both sides.

Right. As I said, I’m willing to improve the Rationale section with 
suggestions, I just can’t think of many other arguments for at the moment. 
Perhaps I need to delve deeper and read some more previous discussions. I’m not 
in favour of the version skip, and though I can play devil’s advocate, I am not 
really very good at doing so here. I don’t dispute that the Rationale section 
could do with improvement.

> 
> I'd also recommend that, since you're calling for a 2/3 vote, you specify 
> more clearly what it is that requires 2/3; breaking the current convention or 
> keeping the current convention?  I'm guessing you probably meant the former, 
> but the wording seemed a bit vague on that point to me.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about here, but to clarify: It is a 
2/3 majority-required vote on whether or not the name should be PHP 6. That 
would be in line with the current convention of incrementing the major version 
number.


I can see Zeev’s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also think 
6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options). However, I 
don’t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just feels like too narrow of a 
majority. I suppose if that 6 yes/no vote fails, I might consider a 50%+1 6/7 
vote.

Bear in mind I proposed at some point recently that we use 2/3 for all votes. 
That was largely related to the 64bit RFC, but I still agree with the principle.

To be honest, I may end up retreating at this point and just calling a 50%+1 
before even running a 2/3 one. My problem with that is that I feel such a 
narrow majority would be too contentious and not end the discussion for good.

Sadly, it is not realistic to hold a vote on the majority with which to vote. ;)

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/





--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to