Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104100
To: Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAF+90c-auGYVhCzt-1GpdU1-uZ+xiY7A_FwWSRKftuKBwtszYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuQusKaF7jFe21mLZKTPtP8G==6R9QFw652F-6MyoFgKog@mail.gmail.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=smalyshev@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 mQMuBE9mqaARCACFSqcGmNunkjQQu3X+yXnTmFeEkvM4JXZTOBdR8aEevNGmmFEfyvjaDjWi
 9hcwp4E/lYtC+P7VsVjM1OSX9eq0jC/lGL0ZyRXek+mNy0n5H1NSuTpf9Y18LMqhc4G+RU+L
 cNiZ9K0DJuOOvNLPxW7OHZguxb3wdKPXNVa2jyRfJAKm2uaJJMT1mTmFT9a0Q8SKr+mUrrJk
 uG0H2o6SzrKt8Wwoint1eh67zVsJaJtQFchnEZnlawIcqP2yC4nLGR3MkubowxoEBYCZet18
 aHVVRbvpG2Qtob8Lu5xrsGbmXymTkHTdpvkfcJFADa8MzOL90zOxXwbGfbIZOlh5En8jAQCX
 lfnx2eQL3BSW/6XANa51dbWiEp1d1BAkpGKtZvlk0Qf+M9WAi+9aXMe3xP5krxtgnRNUf2WN
 6Zdy2MxL1RRJCFbytLhl0ronC49BsGYVGshdEH8xhBbiIOJKuVZ/DTl9bEm7P9c7CC7iJyVC
 khUAhouH6xzZQNLR+RU+QebYzXypVfl99Qk7EdMmr/WAZCHLuvanyqepC5EBsa3VnAfQemSN
 oBeGBKWWLiOsPjvS72+y1z4RUMAfXHn4l/sFMt8zt7/74AmJPwZquV41p4mPO12V4+xPyc6R
 sB84sfsk2QVivU8w8AkvGQeYjXoz7Iwao95+fWteVzZ36KRQvUckP8pGjHlDXnHxJ0HI1I/k
 OBZSjwRwUf0dd73y6erPhbLk+gf+NdI3H9KGJBzG5/rVyWKwUeQ9d5ud4jTJRkQGvAP5pg76
 vEa9dogbpe4W5Z+0BfbiJSnQmQWSHiZddj/t33ptbup44Ck6ZTgdlmFYMLF1hR47PIZTDKER
 EuKYGci/vq8snZvEJP9YCw/TtiHcMdrMKcY/+Lp8lQO0GHLPB9glVhnC0db6l1Xpg1CMI8/R
 ozBMcij30EgATggC/y2zbiqAFoS9FN9nXPbe4phStqABEyeZ+nXudt7PUYTjVgcrqo8bHZCi
 sBobWC7OnKyUzxVxzUeuPkIfmZuzkLaMw2McQdvwwsNvQ0DzaLP30c1Xsm/7EIYJcOWpzlVJ
 5QrdmE0/BbQyU3RhbmlzbGF2IE1hbHlzaGV2IChQSFAga2V5KSA8c21hbHlzaGV2QGdtYWls
 LmNvbT6IegQTEQgAIgUCT2aqtAIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQL3lW
 vF2gS12XMwD9HuRIolSwIK77u8EY461y2u6sbX36n5/uo/LDQuxoi3sA/0MvpnvzOhv9Iufv
 vsZEj3E7i3h+iD5648YMwfTFCij+uQINBE9mqaAQCADfZPMpjZkkGZj3BY/7ApoLq4mwqzbh
 +CpLXwNn20tFNvSXfb8RdeXvVEb7Scx+W9qYpiaun2iXJgCVH8fgpZpR856ulT1q6uCG++CX
 ubEvip/eJkZl93/84h04KQJwsgOrAh0Om3OePRn8Pr+++0LNS0EL8uX/YHeTOGOnnmTqYTey
 SBVFdov6L4mepddfjekicKQqhL7mZh/xuq29JijT0uNNX8v4vDWQDu5dlAcdd+uB3gcXMD/P
 ginD11zp+6wtrWCm/+yBqpvDwXQX5PGUnwvbRfl7Ay3MmwmoXiecZMg0dwTSc7e0lhB4HGRH
 ZdBMJB4rHUVGdzqujK/ctOvrAAMFB/0Utb76Qe6sCMlHxVAmeE/fbo7Pi05btZ/x01r67dHf
 aMSP0riCKJ7M0OW+jAXtu9+z/BVnYisW67WWfxl2cS5tZDgiHgJARXWUOO72+sScHP8KQmTl
 1z16gyKbwY3SmyBkwcpOL35nhUWNLy93syPoY6sZUTikr2bZYukHDQ33XBPs4e6MbWKfsa9q
 aVmnlOF3k5UqChjutfHaEa4Q7VP4wBIpphHBi9MI16oJIzzBPbGl2uoedjwiZ6QeQZnSuOVY
 ZxU2d3lRA8PrtfFN1VSlpEm/VcAvtieHUYWHN0wOu+cp3Slr5XJVNjTjJhl28SlinMME54mK
 AGf2Ldr/dRwXiGEEGBEIAAkFAk9mqaACGwwACgkQL3lWvF2gS126EQD/VVd3FgjLKglClRQP
 zdfU847tqDK4zJjbmRv5vLLwoE0A+wbrQs7jVGU3NrS0AIl5vUmewpp2BKzSkepy23nWmejw
Message-ID: <772223a5-32d0-ad3f-5a82-b45ba8d1a007@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 23:57:06 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuQusKaF7jFe21mLZKTPtP8G==6R9QFw652F-6MyoFgKog@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternative voting reform: Streamlining the RFC process
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Without a required discussion period, there could be slightly more
> 'incentive' for RFC authors to respond as quickly as possible, to 'get
> the discussion out the way'.

I see it exactly opposite - since we have no quorum requirement,
declaring the vote as soon as possible if a couple of people like your
proposal and nobody objected yet seems to be winning strategy. By the
time people analyze it more in detail and decide to voice objections the
vote would be half done, and by the time they read the answers and want
to continue the discussion, the vote would be finished. The right thing
in this scenario would be to vote "no" immediately to any RFC that you
didn't read yet and then start the discussion. This looks like rather
wrong process.

> It should be made really clear to people raising RFCs, that choosing
> to have the minimum voting time, particularly if the discussion didn't
> seem to produce a clear consensus can be, and possibly should be,
> interpreted by voters as a reason to vote against an RFC.

The problem, again, is, as you said, you don't read internals for weeks.
I may also have periods where this happens, and I suspect others too.
Now you come back and discover a blitz RFC already in the second week of
voting, and you don't even know what it's about. So your choice is -
read it and ask questions now, and take chance that the vote would be
done before you even get an answer, or immediately vote "no" on all
unknown RFCs and then maybe change your vote later. I don't think
encouraging such things would create a good process or be encouraging to
new RFC authors.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com