> Am 18.05.2014 um 08:13 schrieb Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>:
>
> A few things:
>
>
>
> - We’re talking about 66%, not %66+1 (i.e., 20 against 10 means a
> Yes, 19 against 10 means a no).
Just to be mathematically clear and to avoid confusion:
We are talking about a 2/3 majority meaning 66.66% not 66%. That means 66 against 34 means no even
though it's 66%. Perhaps that's where the 66%+1 comes from.
Can't we simply talk of 2/3 to avoid any confusion?
Cheers
Andreas
>
> - Nobody is arguing that language changes like annotations will be
> decided by ‘Core’. It’s open to everyone who has a right to vote according
> to the RFC process. Note that presently, people who are allowed to vote
> technically don’t actually have a right to vote based on the Voting RFC,
> which requires not only an SVN account, but also actual code contributions
> to the PHP project; This was a known issue when we rolled out the voting
> mechanism, but this limitation of the voting mechanism doesn’t change the
> who’s eligible to vote.
>
> - I am arguing (as well as a few others) that implementation changes
> – ones without a meaningful impact on the userbase at large, should be
> decided by the respective developers of the code portion in question.
> Annotations don’t fall under that category; Changing internal data
> structures does, and so does changing a documentation platform or
> implementation inside some PECL module. This isn’t simple to define but
> I’m going to try and draft something up, probably based on the the Karma
> assignment. Again, this will *not* impact people’s right to vote on the
> vast majority of RFCs out there, which are almost always about features and
> functions, and rarely about implementation. I still argue that the RFC
> process was never meant to be about implementation, it was so outside the
> scope of the RFC process that I didn’t even think about this possibility
> when I helped drafted it.
>
>
>
> Zeev
>
>
>
> *From:* guilhermeblanco@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermeblanco@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 18, 2014 7:58 AM
> *To:* Kris Craig
> *Cc:* Daniel Convissor; Ferenc Kovacs; Zeev Suraski; Nikita Popov; PHP
> Internals
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 2/3 vote needed (was: 64 bit platform
> improvements...)
>
>
>
> 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
--
Andreas Heigl
Andreas@heigl.org