On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does > not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive > ‘side effect’ of their apps running faster. So while we believe that > technically a 50%+1 vote should suffice, we hope to get well over 2/3. > > If you're not going to delay this, then you should at very least clarify > the wording in this section. You believe 50%+1 should suffice but hope to > get well over 2/3. So is the *required* majority 50%+1 or 2/3? > The text I put there is exactly what I think about the subject of required majority. 50%+1 is enough for a change that does not effect end users in any meaningful way, but I'll be happier if it received a 2/3 majority to leave any doubts away. I should also point out that, according to the Voting RFC, whether or not > an RFC "actually affects end users in any meaningful way" is NOT a factor > in determining whether a 2/3 supermajority is required or not. Here's what > it actually states: > > > For these reasons, a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax > for example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the > votes. Other RFCs require 50% + 1 votes to get 'accepted'. > > Since the phpng RFC already acknowledges that it affects the language > itself, this is clearly a 2/3 requirement situation. Whether it affects > end-users or not is irrelevant. Under current rules, your RFC must have > 2/3 support in order to pass. > As the person who wrote that text in the Voting RFC, I can tell you with absolute certainty that you are 100% wrong in your interpretation, as I've said numerous times in the past. A feature that affects the *language* itself is not a feature that affects the *language implementation*. Generally speaking, now that we have a Specification project, the spirit of the Voting RFC is that changes to the Language Specification would require 2/3 majority, while all other changes would not. This is also not 100% accurate since there are some elements of the language behavior that aren't covered by the spec (e.g.superglobal availability and behavior) - but replacing the implementation with a compatible one absolutely does *not* fall within the realm of "features that affect the language". If you recall the 64-bit discussion several months ago, when I was (back then) on the opposing side, I clearly said to people who said this requires a 2/3 majority that it's very debatable - because while it does have some end user impact that changes the language behavior, it's mostly an implementation issue, which as such requires a simple majority. So I'm both consistent, and not reinterpreting the rules to fit my needs. As such, I ask that you at least update the wording to make it clear that > 2/3 *is* required for the RFC to pass in order to avoid confusion when it > comes to a vote. I still think you should hold-off until these other > issues of dispute are resolved, though. But that's your choice. I simply > ask that you fix the required majority section to make it in compliance > with current voting rules. > I updated the section to be fully technical and removed my wish of heart to get a 2/3 majority. Although I'd still very much like to get > 2/3, it's not required. Zeev
