Hi Andrea, On 30 Jan 2016 21:04, "Andrea Faulds" <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > Hi Jakub, > > > Jakub Zelenka wrote: >> >> On 30 Jan 2016 17:35, "Andrea Faulds" <a...@ajf.me> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> The vote on the OpenSSL AEAD RFC[1] has made me question our current RFC >> >> process again. Under the Voting RFC[2], "Language changes" (in practice, >> changes to syntax and semantics) require at least a 2/3 majority to pass >> when they come to a vote, whereas changes that don't fall under that >> category require a mere plurality of more Yes votes than No votes, aka >> "50%+1". >>> >>> >> >> FYI the OpenSSL AEAD RFC passed 2/3 majority so not sure why it made you >> question our RFC process... :) >> > > I went and checked again, and it didn't pass by 2/3. It got 7 votes in favour and 4 against. To have passed by 2/3, the number of Yes votes would need to be at least double the number of No votes, but the vote totals didn't meet that. 7:4 is 63.6%, less than 66.6%.
Ah you are right. Was thinking that 60% will do for some reason... :) My fault, sorry. ;) It means that I have to be glad that we have 50%+1 in that case. :) But seriously I think that there wasn't a need for a super majority. It doesn't have any critical consequences and at least the users will get the features that they wanted. It would be quite hard to keep the ext updated if we had to have a super majority for everything IMHO... On the other side you have got a point. It would probably result in better quality if we required it. But I don't think we have got so many core ext developers that we can afford that. It could result in less effort to get anything in which is certainly not good for core extensions. That's basically the difference that I see between the engine and core extension development. The features are much more important for some extensions so we should be less strict IMHO.
