Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115517
Message-ID: <AA2085ED-3263-40A3-B733-809B50B1BCA3@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_5E2BA408-9D33-4B2E-ADF6-3064923D39F3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 05:57:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <b550a7ec-901a-ab9b-59f8-14afefa91c21@heigl.org>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
To: Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>
References: <96487D08-8573-4308-A11C-3118113C03DA@gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_Bm5J7-CxpidME89iMATqryRH2Mc0mTog_KAUJccuw5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKU0ukYZUU5UO1VPsdbrjN16JnKp563aecrx3_O+n-eQmzDjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d55f768-41d2-d970-8417-aa786d86b984@heigl.org>
 <b550a7ec-901a-ab9b-59f8-14afefa91c21@heigl.org>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Request for karma to vote on RFCs
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_5E2BA408-9D33-4B2E-ADF6-3064923D39F3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Quoting the RFC

> the requester has contributed to the PHP sourcecode ecosystem.

You mention what types of contributions apply, but give no indication of =
quantity.  If someone fixes one bug, does that give them voting rights?  =
I would assume not.  So is it two bugs, 10 bugs, 100?

> these contributions show a consistent effort

How is "consistent" defined?  How frequently and for what minimum time =
period?

> the requester has shown interaction with the main discussion medium of =
the relevant part


This is unclear to me. I assume "the main discussion medium" is more =
than just the mailing list, otherwise you would have said the mailing =
list, right?=20

 And what does "relevant part" mean?   Maybe some examples would help, =
at least in reply.

> the requester has a proponent that currently has voting karma

Agreeing with Jordan LeDoux, these seems primed to make current voting =
members a target for wanna-be voters.=20

Maybe this could discuss processes that would naturally bring people to =
want to sponsor someone, such as (maybe?) recommending they first =
"apprentice" under one or more people by helping document, helping fix =
bugs, or working with them on an RFC?=20

> The requester should search a proponent of their case that then =
proposes the request for voting karma to the dedicated discussion medium =
for such requests. The proposal should include the reasons why the =
proponent thinks the requester fullfills the above stated requirements.

Are you really suggesting that allowing someone new to vote would be =
held out in the open, where the discussions about that person will get =
recorded on externals.io <http://externals.io/> and indexed by Google =
for all to see, forevermore? =20

Seems like discussion about an individual should respect the long term =
privacy of the individual a bit more, especially for those who will be =
turned down.=20

> When there are more approvals than objections the voting karma will be =
granted.

How is voting to be done?  Yay's and nay's on a mailing list?  Or some =
other way? =20

And voting right can be approved with 51% whereas most RFCs require 67% =
to pass?

I ask these questions so people who might be interested in getting =
voting rights would have an objective roadmap for how to get there =
otherwise it would seem to just be documenting an extremely subjective =
process.  (Which might be all you are attempting to do?)

Anyway, #jmtcw.

-Mike



> On Jul 20, 2021, at 2:22 AM, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org> wrote:
>=20
> Hey All
>=20
> Am 19.07.21 um 17:02 schrieb Andreas Heigl:
>> Hey All
>>=20
>> Am 19.07.21 um 16:34 schrieb Levi Morrison via internals:
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 2:38 AM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 8:48 PM Tobias Nyholm =
<tobias.nyholm@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> Hey.
>>>>> I would like to get karma to be able to vote on RFCs. I understand =
that
>>>>> voting karma isn=E2=80=99t usually given out to people who write =
their first
>>>>> mailing list entry.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> But I do believe I qualify as =E2=80=9CLead developers of PHP =
based projects
>>>>> (frameworks, cms, tools, etc.)=E2=80=9D
>>>>=20
>>>> Hey Tobias,
>>>>=20
>>>> My response here is basically the same as the last time the topic =
came up:
>>>> https://externals.io/message/110936#110937 Voting is just the very =
last
>>>> step of the RFC process, at which point the proposal can no longer =
be
>>>> influenced. If you have feedback about a proposal based on your =
extensive
>>>> experience in PHP's open source ecosystem, then the discussion =
phase is the
>>>> time to provide it, while it can still influence the proposal, as =
well as
>>>> other people's view of the proposal.
>>>=20
>>> I second this.
>>>=20
>>>> At least in my personal opinion, I think it's important that people =
granted
>>>> voting rights as community representatives have at least some =
historical
>>>> involvement in RFC discussions.
>>>=20
>>> I agree with this, but have no specific objection to granting Tobias
>>> voting karma, as this is underspecified; how long should they
>>> participate? What kinds of involvement are appropriate? Being
>>> underspecified is not really their fault, and I don't feel like it
>>> would be an abuse to grant them voting karma, but do think it would =
be
>>> an abuse to deny them voting karma indefinitely because "we" don't =
get
>>> around to specifying it. It should be less of a decision on a
>>> case-by-case basis and more of a checklist.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Sounds like we need an RFC to make it clearer how voting karma for =
the
>> RFC process will be granted in the future.
>=20
> I have created a draft for an RFC to implement future rules for =
granting
> voting karma.
>=20
> If you want to contribute to that, feel free to open a PR against =
it[1].
>=20
> To be able to make the future karma grants more trnasparent this needs
> input from everyone: Opponoents as well as proponents!
>=20
> I'm looking forward to a fruitful conversation and to a great RFC that
> can move us to more transparency.
>=20
> Cheers
>=20
> Andreas
>=20
> [1]
> =
https://github.com/heiglandreas/rfc/blob/main/implement_future_rules_for_g=
ranting_voting_karma.md
>=20
> --=20
>                                                              ,,,
>                                                             (o o)
> =
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
> | Andreas Heigl                                                       =
|
> | mailto:andreas@heigl.org                  N 50=C2=B022'59.5" E =
08=C2=B023'58" |
> | https://andreas.heigl.org                                           =
|
> =
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas                               =
|
> =
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_5E2BA408-9D33-4B2E-ADF6-3064923D39F3--