On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 10:48, Peter Cowburn <petercowb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just want to go on the record in saying that I am very, very disappointed > that a choice that only got 28% of the overall votes, and only 33% of votes > in the "we want change" scenario, is being taken as the will of the > overwhelming majority, which is the bar that is needed to be crossed for > RFC votes. This is wholly irresponsible. > Three-way votes are always tricky in this respect, but I think in this case Nikita has taken a very sensible approach. Firstly, the interpretation of the three-way vote was laid out very clearly on the page, and I'm not aware of anyone objecting to it prior to this point. Secondly, it makes sense intuitively: it seems unlikely that someone who would vote yes to the question "Should undefined variables give an Error instead of a Notice?" would vote no to the question "Should undefined variables give a Warning instead of a Notice?" Thirdly, the options are not mutually exclusive in the way that, say, a syntax decision would be. Raising the level to Warning now doesn't prevent a future proposal to raise it to Error (e.g. on a different timescale). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, RFC votes are intended to be measures of consensus. Taken alongside the discussion, the result strongly suggests that there is a consensus (but not a unanimous one) to change the error level, but there is some concern about raising it as high as Error. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
