Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111635 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 48992 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2020 22:50:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2020 22:50:12 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A09518050A for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:51:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-qk1-f182.google.com (mail-qk1-f182.google.com [209.85.222.182]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-f182.google.com with SMTP id p25so23097366qkp.2 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:51:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=benramsey.com; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=SgEY0Q7OjmztZb1kivQdT7363xHSI0JoiEmnvo7ZBXs=; b=GQmiDnxAXXG+pWl+5ryIh9ylQP+JJCIYAUcxOXsuhrmNSbz6niADl5q582uyadcoiV MBIIpaP1hc+ci/eGZwfbG+Bz2elA748yeYEomY6yEJkmEn5lITN/ga9kFRnoLFRCv0gt NYr2LaoyF5HMvhUCTNDWObwpUEUcFhTPrq14IK7zrIlF1GOHZCydVptWxc5SP/A3bHV0 luWVcOijXBzDHna1Tt02JCnRJuzM5q5UUtwvV25a+twtt3EqoVwhMCITiytNzm9kwFv7 h5f+0JGvZfZLeQaFyBc1TneHbo7Ug4H4l6+MEMXfZrhkETooqElcpVSHtyEVA+draxNQ HGXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=SgEY0Q7OjmztZb1kivQdT7363xHSI0JoiEmnvo7ZBXs=; b=kJwGuilWNRsxXDsjFv67bi+aAvBFCzcN73OEoEGb3Zwx3gspgaEm3oUOhdIlHMrBGC q7X5HYFWh0YRlm5nx0oyYFwhiKQ1wXEqIOdt5kGGCaIPDSi0M2yV6bnT5wZYZUaZWFuz DICpa+tJ5bRSfGbRF/r5f3X4/lv4M+94nvQdSRU/9/LvvN1ivnPWSvllG8bEOczrWde0 xQNu6Y8xOqXx7NfmiCYATbIJd4QdcKDmEMMIHkbsGqIiQmXfAGQouO2yHTZwnUI3+lck 6uu4XbFwzIQ4C+w54oWNW3vZpx3Gz0AUaOYfu5Zy0Q18oISxg95eNOWQucs1dEF7CEyM HUhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dcTvT0UQAIzcFOEBMsjfcdI02tK4ozqoPRKfgGpBYCXUi4Fhj wK4c8UPnaJpfAQZC32bCkjUQ+w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9x/TOf5QsDCugG4woWErySVftGhjDau7k8XZT9aiioGz6K3A8tK8LsYxgtExrewUCbJVx2w== X-Received: by 2002:a37:90e:: with SMTP id 14mr45671qkj.102.1597873900042; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ip-172-27-233-236.ec2.internal (ec2-52-205-43-144.compute-1.amazonaws.com. [52.205.43.144]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s56sm408713qtk.72.2020.08.19.14.51.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50F88AC4-1BCB-4D74-971E-DA4CA3D887E6@benramsey.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4F0AC284-F60E-4999-8970-352DBE5B6987"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\)) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:51:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: Cc: PHP Internals To: Benjamin Morel References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Community vote on RFCs From: ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey) --Apple-Mail=_4F0AC284-F60E-4999-8970-352DBE5B6987 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 19, 2020, at 16:27, Benjamin Morel = wrote: >=20 > Hi internals, >=20 > The heated debate about attribute syntax made me think once again that = it > would be valuable to get feedback in the form of votes from the = community, > not just from core developers, on RFCs under discussion. >=20 > Understandably, the RFC voting process needs to be restricted to = carefully > selected people, mostly core developers. But the fact is, this process = is a > bit elitist, and fails to represent the community as a whole. A recent > thread showed that even very = active > contributors to OSS are unlikely to ever get a vote. >=20 > A project being nothing without its users, it would be nice to know = whether > an important change will make them happy or not. >=20 > Therefore, I have in mind to develop (time permitting) an experimental > tool, external to the PHP wiki, that would replicate the voting = options of > each RFC, but would allow everyone with a GitHub account to vote on = the > same options as the original RFC. While the vote results would not = directly > affect the wiki's vote results, I guess that this community feedback = could > be taken into consideration by wiki voters and help them make an = informed > decision. >=20 > To be useful, a link to the community voting site would need to be = present > in each RFC, ideally some time before the actual voting starts on the = wiki. >=20 > If popular enough, this tool could offer some analysis capabilities, = such > as "what's the vote results from people having at least 100 commits to = the > top 1000 packagist projects in the last year?" to help filter out the = noise. >=20 > Thoughts? I think there=E2=80=99s already a fair amount of community = representation on this list, and while there are sometimes criticisms levied at internals, such as =E2=80=9Cinternals doesn=E2=80=99t use PHP=E2=80=9D = or =E2=80=9Cinternals doesn=E2=80=99t understand what the rest of the PHP community wants,=E2=80=9D I think = these are false or mistaken. A lot of the folks who have voting privileges and who actively participate in voting on RFCs are already what some might call =E2=80=9Cat-large=E2=80=9D community representatives. Those on this list who have wider community networks often seek feedback on RFCs from their network. None of this is done in a vacuum. It=E2=80=99s all fairly transparent, and if non-voting members want to = provide input, they have various ways to do so (e.g., posting here, giving feedback to someone who is active here, etc.). That said, I never want to discourage more involvement from the wider community, but I think something like what you=E2=80=99re proposing = needs to be handled carefully. I think it would need to be clear that this is not a binding *vote*. Rather, it=E2=80=99s an informal *poll* to gauge support/interest in something. People who do have RFC voting privileges are not obligated to vote one way or another based on the results of the poll. In the end, it may be best if an informal poll like this is conducted by a third-party who does not have RFC voting privileges (so that they could be considered neutral and unrelated to internals). This way, there=E2=80=99s no confusion over the purpose of the poll, and it is = simply information that may be shared with internals but is not officially sanctioned by the PHP project. There=E2=80=99s nothing stopping anyone from doing this right now. :-) Cheers, Ben --Apple-Mail=_4F0AC284-F60E-4999-8970-352DBE5B6987 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----- iHUEAREIAB0WIQToXQMR3fpbrPOmEOewLZeYnIwHGwUCXz2e6AAKCRCwLZeYnIwH G1gJAP4vjhUxezQgeY2Krf7LLwH5/Q4VOFz6At5oWIorqBz9ygEAk4I+y1t6mTyI Bh34wr6/PgNTYBpM6iKa/mmWSwFOtBE= =mFx/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4F0AC284-F60E-4999-8970-352DBE5B6987--