Le mar. 10 mars 2015 à 19:29, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Hi, > > 2015-03-10 11:39 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT <patrickalla...@php.net>: > > Hello, >> >> Le ven. 6 mars 2015 à 00:44, Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >>> >>> You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide >>> between E_WARNING (for consistency), E_DEPRECATED or E_STRICT. For me >>> this >>> is just a detail but maybe it's very important to others, so better to >>> let >>> each voter decide upon it. >>> >> >> In case of language changes, shouldn't the 2/3 of majority be required at >> any levels? >> >> > I don't think it's possible. What would happen if the yes/no vote passes > but the secondary vote doesn't reach 2/3 for some option? This would be a > weird situation. > Pretty simple actually: it would simply not pass because it wouldn't gather enough support. Discuss the options, see what gather the most support and the better reasonings and then suggest that the RFC "yes" vote means A, B or C while summarizing the reasons of the choice for it in the RFC itself. A language change vote requiring 2/3 majority on a Yes/No and a simple majority in an option basically means not requiring 2/3 at all, but 50% (with 2 options) at most!
