On 6 Jul 2014, at 02:04, Christoph Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Andrea Faulds wrote: > >> 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. > > Have you considered a 6 vs. 7 vs. other vote, which would require a > majority (i.e. > 50%) to pass? In my first reply to Zeev, I said I was opposed to having a 6/7/other vote with a plurality, but a 50%+1 vote of that kind might be more tolerable. Then again, the “other” votes might ensure nothing passes. To be honest, I’d much rather just do a 6/7 50%+1 vote in that case. I suppose I could also do a 6/7 2/3 majority vote in place of the 6 yes/no 2/3 majority vote the RFC proposes, though then again, you’d have the question of what to do if neither gets an outright majority. Of course we have that problem anyway with a yes/no 2/3 majority vote. Argh, I need some sleep. I’ll think about it further and respond in the morning. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
