On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > Hi Andi, > > > On 5 Feb 2015, at 23:50, Andi Gutmans <a...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > I am not sure. > > > > I think we need to explicitly vote on a weak type hinting option. > > Andrea, I think this should be an option in any vote. Right now it feels > like the only option to people is the very challenging, non-consensus > driving RFC or nothing. > > I think we have plenty of key folks who would support weak type hinting > and frankly, I think that would be a huge win for everyone! > > Yes, *you* think it’s a huge win for everyone. There are plenty who’d > disagree. > > This RFC is a different attempt at consensus. Rather than asserting the > dominance of one idea over the other and completely ignoring the segment of > the community that believes in a particular approach, it allows using both > approaches. It allows choice. It’s radical, sure, but I think trying to > accommodate everyone’s use cases (or at least most people’s) is better than > covering only one of two. >
Just to be clear, I think it's a thoughtful RFC. I don't think it's dumb. I can even see where you're coming from on trying to balance the approaches. I do think we should also represent the weak type hinting only folks in a ballot too. Andi
