Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104958
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <C6AE92EE-6370-4486-8B0C-E5735091F2BD@benramsey.com> <CAJvSBVNqSH7gvMf8hq7wJUL+Mz2xBU_0YhbdNCh7TyPR_NnKXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJvSBVNqSH7gvMf8hq7wJUL+Mz2xBU_0YhbdNCh7TyPR_NnKXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:25:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKxKDZn3+Fdu-TEmX2Y_NdbsS1ZThHZ6TCvEFmzN=5smsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>, 
	Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f4cd40584ff43a0"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Process: more productive conversations
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--0000000000001f4cd40584ff43a0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:02 AM Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote:
>
> > If someone enters nonsense or =E2=80=9Cn/a=E2=80=9D or any value that d=
oesn=E2=80=99t justify
> > their vote or doesn=E2=80=99t appear to satisfactorily justify it accor=
ding to
> some
> > metric of justification satisfaction, then does that person=E2=80=99s v=
ote get
> > thrown out or discounted?
> >
>
> During the experiment, not at all.
>
> I'm not presupposing any outcome, and if commenting was kept after the
> experiment and if it was to have an effect like you describe, it would ne=
ed
> to go through the RFC process and be approved.
>
>
> > What is the goal of the experiment?
> >
>
> To see if there's a basis in practice for the concern expressed around wh=
o
> can vote and the problems it may/does cause;
> To see how people respond to being asked to comment, explaining their
> choice of vote;
> To see what impact commenting has on the voting process.
>
> It would need to be run for a set period of time; perhaps best measured i=
n
> "Number of votes carried out". Completely guessed without looking at past
> vote frequency, but say 4 months or 10 votes, whichever is longer.
>
> Peter
>

For this to have meaningful results, I think you would also need the
ability for people to abstain, along with a comment as to why they aren't
voting.

--=20
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--0000000000001f4cd40584ff43a0--