On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > 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. > > That's exactly my point; i.e. "2/3.... whether or not" seems ambiguous to me. Does that mean that a 2/3 "yes" vote is required for the version to be PHP 6? Or does it mean that a 2/3 "no" vote is required for the version *not* to be PHP 6?
--Kris
