Re: [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform improvements...)

From: Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 04:57:58 +0000
Subject: Re: [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform improvements...)
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-74324@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
Hi,

Let's reiterate this over... 66%+1 of voting members and not 66%+1 of core
members. Is that right?
I really want this to be fixed, because Annotations for 66%+1 of voting
members, but not of core member and it got rejected.
Just to make things sure... I don't wanna hear about meritocracy again.

Cheers,


On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Convissor <
> danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks:
> >
> > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:12:18AM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > >  I think it still mandates a 66%+1 vote.
> >
> > Agreed.  This is a major change.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > --Dan
> >
> > --
> >  T H E   A N A L Y S I S   A N D   S O L U T I O N S   C O M P A N Y
> >             data intensive web and database programming
> >                 http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
> I agree that it should have been, but under the current language of the
> voting RFC, it can also be reasonably interpreted to call for a simple
> majority.  The RFC author chose to go with simple majority and left it
> there.  Trying to change the requirement mid-vote would be far more
> troubling, in my view.  Instead, we should discuss clarifying that language
> in the voting RFC so that the interpretation is not so subjective in the
> future.
>
> --Kris
>



-- 
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada


Thread (87 messages)

« previous php.internals (#74324) next »