On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote: > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com] > > > > no votes should be meaning "I want as less as possible support". > > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the most > > restrictive schedule as a result. > > (Interpreting it like "you need 50%+1 of the total to get it extended so > > far".) > > > > Hence Security Support until Dec 31 2017. > > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented ahead > of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and very > clearly so: > "In case the majority chooses to extend the lifetime of PHP 5.6 (>50%) - then > the option garnering more votes between the two proposed timelines would win." > > I'm not sure what the situation would have been had we truly had a 23/23 > split, probably a revote or an extended voting period, but the current > situation is very well defined under the RFC terms.
Not that I particularly care about this outcome, but there were only "42" Yes votes, and "2" No votes. As the voting says for the second part "ONLY IF YOU CHOSE 'YES' ABOVE: ", there should only be 42 votes in the second part, and not 44 like there are now (21+23)... so there is something wonky. I would recommend, not to do split votes like this anymore. It's just too confusing IMO. cheers, Derick -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
