Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104161
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:07:02 +0100
Message-ID: <2734749.8VgiAcunSb@mcmic-probook>
Organization: OpenSides
User-Agent: KMail/5.2.3 (Linux/4.9.0-8-amd64; KDE/5.28.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznzn9Qm7RFpLUkCDhSBzcFADf2nD7h+X1MA8AekHjnBkKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <03f401d4b96b$18b9dc60$4a2d9520$@php.net> <CAPhkiZxSfiSsBF4=O+PeJoKmYXj7RDQYfMAqcnoihzj9vge_vg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtznzn9Qm7RFpLUkCDhSBzcFADf2nD7h+X1MA8AekHjnBkKg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
From: come@opensides.be (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=F4me?= Chilliet)

Le mardi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2019, 10:36:48 CET Zeev Suraski a =C3=A9crit :
> Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> explanation on why you need one - enough to convince one of the folks
> with admin rights on master.php.net to click the 'Accept' button.
> That's all.  Immediately, one has identical rights to someone who may
> have been spending years of their time on PHP, in a one way ticket.

To me that is the purpose of voting, what you=E2=80=99re saying is like com=
plaining that in a democracy old people with experience has the same voting=
 power than young ones.
I feel for votes to make sense you need a lot of people voting, a vote betw=
een the 10 core developers does not make a lot of sense, and could well be =
replaced by a discussion on a mailing list.

I=E2=80=99m also not sure why one would need to be coding PHP itself to be =
able to vote its direction, I feel it=E2=80=99s sane that people using it h=
ave a say in it.=20
I know you (or someone else) explained having a say in it does not necessar=
ily means having voting power, but I feel it does.
I=E2=80=99m not sure without voting power I would follow closely RFCs as I =
do now.
So I think this is where my main disagreement with these criteria is: I lik=
e that people interested in PHP can get access to voting where it goes.

> As I mentioned above, the criteria is open for debate.  From my POV
> though, having such a criteria and implementing it - even if it's 7.5
> years too late - is a must.
> I agree that a commit count isn't a good criteria on its own, but as
> mentioned above - I think it adds value as an added bar for the
> already-low 500 line count.
> I consider both criteria as fairly low bars for full voting powers on
> one of the most popular open source projects in the world.

You make it like it=E2=80=99s a gift for people to be able to vote on PHP R=
=46Cs while I feel like it=E2=80=99s good for PHP to have people voting its=
 RFCs.

> Also note that the 'Grandfathering' period aims at providing a
> reasonable transition for those who are borderline qualified to vote,
> and gives them a full year to clear the bar to retain their full
> voting rights.

This is exactly the problem with such criteria: It will push people to do t=
hings just to get the criteria, like fix typos in comments or split feature=
s in several commits to make the count.
Voting system criteria should not influence the way we write the code.

One last point: Having non-core developers voting puts a higher bar on RFC =
redacting quality: The author needs to explain his feature well enough so t=
hat people without deep internal knowledge get it. This is a good thing.

C=C3=B4me