On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/03/2017 13:38, Christoph M. Becker wrote: >> >> On 18.03.2017 at 12:29, Marco Pivetta wrote: >> >>> Wait, when was the vote opened? I didn't receive any notification of that >>> (and therefore didn't vote yet), and we were still telling you in this >>> thread that there are fundamental conceptual issues with the backing >>> reasoning. >> >> Adam announced the vote on March, 8th, see >> <http://news.php.net/php.internals/98447>. The voting result was 8:1, >> by the way. >> > > I did think it was surprising that this RFC only had 9 votes registered, > when the one I opened around the same time currently has 29, so I wonder if > Marco wasn't the only one who overlooked it? > > However, I received the notification fine, and it was picked up by the SO > chat bot, https://php-rfc-watch.beberlei.de/, etc, so it may just be that a > lot of people were aware but decided to abstain. > > Regards, > > -- > Rowan Collins > [IMSoP] > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
We currently do not have any provision for requiring at least a certain amount of votes, but in my opinion it would be prudent to do so for cases like this. With only *nine* contributors voting and it not even being unanimous I feel like it shouldn't pass. Anyone who is gathering notes for a voting rework proposal should take note. And of course RFCs should only be held to the agreed rules of the time, so I'm not saying we should reject this RFC. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
