On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more comprehensive
> section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the current convention. Another section
> could be created to outline the other side. What we don't want is a situation where Zeev feels
> compelled to write a competing RFC. That could get messy, so I think it'd be best if the two
> of you could find enough common ground to make this RFC acceptable to both sides.
Right. As I said, I’m willing to improve the Rationale section with suggestions, I just can’t
think of many other arguments for at the moment. Perhaps I need to delve deeper and read some more
previous discussions. I’m not in favour of the version skip, and though I can play devil’s
advocate, I am not really very good at doing so here. I don’t dispute that the Rationale section
could do with improvement.
>
> I'd also recommend that, since you're calling for a 2/3 vote, you specify more
> clearly what it is that requires 2/3; breaking the current convention or keeping the current
> convention? I'm guessing you probably meant the former, but the wording seemed a bit vague on
> that point to me.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about here, but to clarify: It is a 2/3
majority-required vote on whether or not the name should be PHP 6. That would be in line with the
current convention of incrementing the major version number.
I can see Zeev’s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also think 6.1, or codenames, are
possible though unlikely other options). However, I don’t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it
just feels like too narrow of a majority. I suppose if that 6 yes/no vote fails, I might consider a
50%+1 6/7 vote.
Bear in mind I proposed at some point recently that we use 2/3 for all votes. That was largely
related to the 64bit RFC, but I still agree with the principle.
To be honest, I may end up retreating at this point and just calling a 50%+1 before even running a
2/3 one. My problem with that is that I feel such a narrow majority would be too contentious and not
end the discussion for good.
Sadly, it is not realistic to hold a vote on the majority with which to vote. ;)
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/