Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104027
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 17:24:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-auGYVhCzt-1GpdU1-uZ+xiY7A_FwWSRKftuKBwtszYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eacb5e0580ebb133"
Subject: Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--000000000000eacb5e0580ebb133
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi internals,

After discussing the topic with a number of current and former
contributors, I feel that the workflow & voting RFC currently under
discussion is moving us in the wrong direction. I will not comment on the
rather questionable proposed changes to voting eligibility, as these are
already extensively discussed in the RFC thread.

The remainder of the workflow & voting RFC is mostly concerned with
defining stricter rules and more rigid procedures for the RFC process. It
increases the amount of bureaucracy and overhead involved in the RFC
process, making the RFC processes even less suitable for smaller changes
than it already is.

The proposal I would like to present in the following is not my own idea,
it has been suggested by Anthony Ferrara. Because I found the idea very
compelling, I'm presenting it to the list now.

---

Instead of making the RFC process more complex and rigid, we should
simplify and streamline it. The RFC process is reduced to only two rules:

1. All primary RFC votes require a 2/3 majority, while secondary votes
resolving implementation details may use a simple majority. (This is
already proposed in the voting margins RFC, so discussion about this point
should be directed into the corresponding RFC thread.)

2. All RFCs must have a voting period of at least 14 days, announced in a
separate [VOTE] thread.

---

That's it. More notable than the rules itself are probably the two main
omissions:

1. There is no required discussion period. However, if an RFC vote is
opened without leaving enough time for discussion, then voters can and
should vote the RFC down on the grounds of insufficient discussion.

The motivation for not having a fixed discussion period (but a longer
minimum voting period) is that RFCs come in many different forms and sizes.
Some RFCs are long and complex (such as the recent typed properties RFC)
and require more time for an adequate discussion. Other RFCs are simple and
of limited scope (such as an extension function addition) and do not
require extensive discussion.

While a two week discussion period should remain a good guideline for
language-related RFCs, it is up to the RFC author to decide when opening an
RFC vote is appropriate. This will depend both on the scope of the RFC
itself and the activity of the discussion. (It is an unfortunate fact that
many RFCs receive their first meaningful feedback during the voting period.)

2. There is no moratorium period after an RFC vote fails. If you think that
you have made significant progress on an RFC and resolved the issues that
made the previous vote fail, you can give it another shot at any time,
without having to wait out some fixed period.

A failed vote does not (necessarily) mean that a feature is not wanted. It
is quite common for significant changes to fail on first vote, due to
issues in the initial proposal. A failed vote should not be a
discouragement, but a motivation to address problems expressed during
discussion or voting.

It should go without saying that if you restart a failed RFC vote without
making substantial changes to the RFC, the result is unlikely to change in
your favor, and that continued misbehavior might be seen as spam.

---

Essentially, this is about making the RFC process more suitable for changes
small and large, and empowering both RFC authors and the voter base to make
decisions that are appropriate for each RFC.

What do you think?

Regards,
Nikita

--000000000000eacb5e0580ebb133--