> I just want to go on the record in saying that I am very, very disappointed
> that a choice that only got 28% of the overall votes, and only 33% of votes
> in the "we want change" scenario, is being taken as the will of the
> overwhelming majority, which is the bar that is needed to be crossed for
> RFC votes. This is wholly irresponsible.
Three-way votes are always tricky in this respect, but I think in this case
Nikita has taken a very sensible approach.
Firstly, the interpretation of the three-way vote was laid out very clearly
on the page, and I'm not aware of anyone objecting to it prior to this
Secondly, it makes sense intuitively: it seems unlikely that someone who
would vote yes to the question "Should undefined variables give an Error
instead of a Notice?" would vote no to the question "Should undefined
variables give a Warning instead of a Notice?"
Thirdly, the options are not mutually exclusive in the way that, say, a
syntax decision would be. Raising the level to Warning now doesn't prevent
a future proposal to raise it to Error (e.g. on a different timescale).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, RFC votes are intended to be
measures of consensus. Taken alongside the discussion, the result strongly
suggests that there is a consensus (but not a unanimous one) to change the
error level, but there is some concern about raising it as high as Error.