Zeev, As a rule of thumb, if the language syntax doesn’t change, it doesn’t need > a 2/3 vote. > > How do I know? I asked for this special majority in the first place. It > was designed to protect the language from becoming the kitchen sink of > programming languages, not from making architectural progress. > > > > If we need to amend the original voting RFC text so that it’s clearer – > let’s do that. Right now it’s slightly ambiguous because it mentions > ‘language syntax’ as an example, instead of outright saying that it’s about > that, period. >
Ambiguous writing is no excuse. People vote based on what is written, not what was intended. Clarifying after the fact the intentions is not how RFCs are designed to work. The point is that there's supposed to be clarity in the text. And considering that the text is pretty clear that any change affecting the language itself must have 2/3 majority, the question is not what was intended by that statement, but if adopting ZO+ affects the language (by interpretation). So far, from what I've seen, you and Rasmus are the major people backing the "this is not a language change" camp. In the other camp, there are several people who have stood up and said that it does appear to be a language change. I'm not trying to draw lines in the sand, but I'm trying to point out that we have a disagreement that needs to be resolved. Hand waving and saying "it's not what I meant by that line" shows nothing but disrespect for the system and for everyone who participates in it... So my proposal is to slow down for a minute and not call this RFC accepted or not until we can come to some consensus as to if it classifies as a language change or not... Better to clarify for the health of the project than to plow through and risk causing further strife... Anthony
