Hello, a bit of fuzz; no need having a dramatic posture either; php RFC system needs to be matured; the same way than c++ fellowship (I don't say it was without dramas over the years); in my opinion there are two many of them opened at the same time; some targets strictly the userspace; some language features and finally other regards the zend engine (absolute on purpose); maybe they should not be discussed on the same list.
tschüss! On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:25 AM Zeev Suraski <z...@php.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:14 PM Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:32 PM G. P. B. <george.bany...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think this just boils down to what is an acceptable majority, if > > > > 2/3 is not enough then 3/4 but this is another debate altogether. > > > > > > > > > > I've argued in the past that it would make sense to require a 9/10 > > majority > > > for RFCs. Very few RFCs that passed - only cleared a 2/3 majority. > > > Usually (in the vast majority of cases), it either clears a nearly > > > unanimous vote - or it doesn't even come close to 2/3. > > > > > > RFCs that have a high number of votes (i.e., that people feel strongly > > > about), and barely pass the 2/3 mark - are controversial and saw > > division. > > > Yes, it means that out of the (almost random) group of people who are > > > currently enabled to vote by our (flawed) voting system > > > > If you think it's flawed > > > It's not that I think it's flawed - I know it's flawed. It doesn't > implement what was agreed upon when the Voting RFC was enacted. > > > > , you know that the RFC process is there for > > anybody to change it. Joe already managed twice towards what you > > suggested in your stalled RFC: > > > > - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-short-votes > > - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins (btw, you voted > > against this one to raise the barrier from 50%+1 to ⅔rds). > > > > I'm well aware of it. In doing that, I think we greatly complicated the > prospects of fixing the voting eligibility - which is an infinitely hotter > potato to handle. Both 'abolish' RFCs enjoyed popular support and had very > little touchy subjects - unlike the topic of who gets to vote, or the > prospect of moving to a consensus-based system. > > > It's absolutely fine to dislike short tags. It's absolutely fine to > > > believe it shouldn't have been introduced. But the gap between that, > > > and thinking it's fine to remove it - is very, very big. > > > > But the fact is that the RFC passed. And retroactively changing rules > > because somebody don't agree with a decision is making a farce out of > > the process. > > > > I've detailed the issues with the RFC in my other reply. > > I'm well aware that I'm spending quite a bit of 'credit capital' by > weighing in on this, and I'm enjoying it roughly as one would enjoy having > their tooth pulled out without anesthesia (which still pales in comparison > to what it would take to fix our voting process, which will probably be > akin to having an entire set of teeth pull out in the same way). The > reason I'm still doing it is that it's clear this RFC was flawed in its > voting options, its substance, and the level of discussion that surrounded > it (the last one is my opinion, the first two are facts) - and it will have > HUGE implications on hundreds of thousands if not millions of users. So as > I said when I first engaged this thread - as much as I'm 'enjoying' this, I > prefer to take the personal hit and do whatever I can to prevent our users > from taking the hit. > > If we are to inflict this hit on our users - we need to have each and every > t crossed and i dotted. > > Zeev >
