Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104948
Message-ID: <C6AE92EE-6370-4486-8B0C-E5735091F2BD@benramsey.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_274C0C57-95A2-4B77-8EBC-81D582EC0059";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:28:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CA+w=jvw-aE0we2rVeHVzaPZbgfyCNhT6sCdyFUiJP-D5J8z42w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuQnOre3NTb2A2Hcgs1UakiD2g3ZCzXUO4sNBYjiQh75GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKoq26MFetzZr27caW61nMvywdRSG1Gn3U=so4+8CuvvVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuQ9HuNcvgvgiyFG_qDJuyfZxmuqdDuWezstPK=eyR0xxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+w=jvzV=GgUCBy34JKOFtKy8FrGfOjHuer_JrSMmGrcDnWpjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1D4D58A6-DCF2-449E-9219-8F036B70E50A@heigl.org>
 <CA+w=jvw-aE0we2rVeHVzaPZbgfyCNhT6sCdyFUiJP-D5J8z42w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Process: more productive conversations
From: ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)

--Apple-Mail=_274C0C57-95A2-4B77-8EBC-81D582EC0059
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> On Mar 25, 2019, at 11:56, Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 15:24, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org> wrote:
>=20
>> Shall we then also expect people that vote "yes" to explain why they =
voted
>> for the feature? To see whether they understood what they where =
voting on?
>>=20
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
>=20
>> Then we should couple the vote to a comment in the wikinpage and =
without a
>> comment there's no way to vote.
>>=20
>> That way all the information would be readily available in the RFC =
and no
>> one would need to add comments after an RFC was voted upon. Because =
IMO
>> that information as well as the process that lead to acceptance of =
the RFC
>> are also important to afterwards make clear why that feature was
>> implememted the way it was. So all RFCs and also all voters would be
>> treated the same.
>>=20
>=20
> Yes, that is the system I would like. Whether the comments are hidden
> during voting or visible I have no strong feelings - but I would like =
a
> comment to be required to vote. As you say it is useful history.
>=20
> People may enter nonsense into the comment field. They may paste in =
their
> message(s) from internals. I'm OK with any of that as it's an =
experiment.
> If it's not useful, we can stop asking for a comment.
>=20
> Given the concerns raised around voting, it would be interesting to =
see the
> effect this has.


If someone enters nonsense or =E2=80=9Cn/a=E2=80=9D or any value that =
doesn=E2=80=99t justify their vote or doesn=E2=80=99t appear to =
satisfactorily justify it according to some metric of justification =
satisfaction, then does that person=E2=80=99s vote get thrown out or =
discounted?

What is the goal of the experiment?

Cheers,
Ben



--Apple-Mail=_274C0C57-95A2-4B77-8EBC-81D582EC0059
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCXJkrwwAKCRCwLZeYnIwH
G8TWAP0WYrKg6rvSZnngdc6GDitKlvBAd142V3y+C6gcMA+YMgD/a8YU1WiLkM9q
iLiNjyu3rq9WR2vpR/t2mshduQfQCyU=
=Vz+c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_274C0C57-95A2-4B77-8EBC-81D582EC0059--