Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104050 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 42049 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2019 06:00:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wm1-f49.google.com) (209.85.128.49) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2019 06:00:57 -0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f49.google.com with SMTP id g67so9891588wmd.2 for ; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 18:41:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=I/4kUC3baZBuRt7TehwjEvjt5tqnEH+pkYC+1SdeGlg=; b=dgDMjncSdQ65OEfI9fCE9Sx2imx/2VLSzGHQpHdSA5Ry/47InVwcYZOiwl7wvGh+zb 1ZXdnjcJnppT7yge0vUbqeHoSwWF+G95gnSLDLG62D3WJOwm5Weo2Mm+XVxHbY4hksdD 9s/HStz72wn51bM5QGaYYCd9wOKjA+64vO4//kB440SaxCUFJMLiJFgefpuAZeimni/c ypOghWNKLXmz27/t01q2ofhBGcJ6/AiO29Iz9sajQd+UowfGZrsksnTUpTjkZ8X1+GV9 H1gnZeMGu8ZWt7hLecqoFkh0TrvSXpGq95SqvjS19nbnIfM66TgUtqvC4PZdjd2W/PrN 7TqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=I/4kUC3baZBuRt7TehwjEvjt5tqnEH+pkYC+1SdeGlg=; b=EqB2O2L+Cjxpbmw27zM+zITewiHanj8RhR5Y1ORRMym6C6UlPr2+Cg6BR4Qw6Hx1Qw RXssyI/hlhLOl1C/r7peQ4z4BgJTSgr92faaIYAOIQ0iREyneZJhCoPyXaj23PImFLNj 4j/li8RKWSz8VfsKsUc4Nnr5Kih+OdCPDrecUmBumwg+7jk8lLWCwL1ZeUYjmLMLhEt7 h+HjH/D2x002NdtM7PEllW2YXXs+HIdOU22ex6kqbtfudHhR53akCPe0bHcFnFUuXPAL wVc+ZrnX3JN/La3T6LtWMZoaayBlqdmf58wt7nFYvxn4i2/9zeTl9ihcY0gk3497f1EI dV2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZqeh0CgiepLFzzLA3cF1CgRuiNEevf7uf6hONqNbTdmeCbni+W AN+BUM4VgshCA6L52zCDW87mKArAmae6UCdfjng= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZj48L5f6nBnJ43o12FsMtvvsVX3nEPcHcSNx7sx+u/Oq+xyJrI63gGSftIQHaNa2vbAxwnc2xcSqz/EA/w8O0= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:8148:: with SMTP id c69mr7861732wmd.126.1549161688833; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 18:41:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 18:41:16 -0800 Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: PHP internals list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000029a4e20580f45023" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig) --00000000000029a4e20580f45023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Now THIS is a sensible proposal! It resolves the biggest issues in a very simple and straightforward manner. And unlike the other RFC, this proposal does not feel like an exclusionary power grab. --Kris On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 8:24 AM Nikita Popov 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 > --00000000000029a4e20580f45023--