Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115527
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
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>
 <AA2085ED-3263-40A3-B733-809B50B1BCA3@newclarity.net>
Message-ID: <76ab3892-a9f5-3191-7ef1-3d775378f50e@heigl.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:55:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AA2085ED-3263-40A3-B733-809B50B1BCA3@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="kWsjpQJLKdFb7bPAY6VMjBb4RZtfLd1K9"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Request for karma to vote on RFCs
From: andreas@heigl.org (Andreas Heigl)

--kWsjpQJLKdFb7bPAY6VMjBb4RZtfLd1K9
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AfoHcxEO4hyv3OK2oxa81vkDzK7RoTJb2";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <76ab3892-a9f5-3191-7ef1-3d775378f50e@heigl.org>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Request for karma to vote on RFCs
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>
 <AA2085ED-3263-40A3-B733-809B50B1BCA3@newclarity.net>
In-Reply-To: <AA2085ED-3263-40A3-B733-809B50B1BCA3@newclarity.net>

--AfoHcxEO4hyv3OK2oxa81vkDzK7RoTJb2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Mike

Thank you for your feedback!

Am 20.07.21 um 11:57 schrieb Mike Schinkel:
> Quoting the RFC
>=20
>> the requester has contributed to the PHP sourcecode ecosystem.
>=20
> You mention what types of contributions apply, but give no indication o=
f quantity.  If someone fixes one bug, does that give them voting rights?=
  I would assume not.  So is it two bugs, 10 bugs, 100?

As the RFC is still not finished especially in terms of wording that is
something that definitely needs some improvements. I tried to leave it
as open as possible in the initial draft to have that as basis for
further discussions. What do you think would be an appropriate number?
>=20
>> these contributions show a consistent effort
>=20
> How is "consistent" defined?  How frequently and for what minimum time =
period?

This is the same "blurriness" as above due to the same reasons. Any
suggestions for a better wording? For me consistent means that someone
keeps at something for the duration of that process. So not like giving
a comment to a bug report and off but instead continuously monitoring
the bug, answering comments, triaging the bug, looking to find someone
to fix it, writing tests for it etc. But yes, that is not described in
the RFC and that'S just my personal take. Being explicit definitely is
better there.

Though perhaps we should not become too explicit and still allow a
certain amount of interpretation.
>=20
>> the requester has shown interaction with the main discussion medium of=
 the relevant part
>=20
>=20
> This is unclear to me. I assume "the main discussion medium" is more th=
an just the mailing list, otherwise you would have said the mailing list,=
 right?=20

The "main discussion medium" is currently the Mailinglist. As I have no
idea of when this RFC will be ready for voting I kept it that vague to
not have to rewrite everything should for whatever reason the mailing
list be replaced with something else. For some things the mailing-list
has already been replaced with the PR-Comments
>=20
>  And what does "relevant part" mean?   Maybe some examples would help, =
at least in reply.

See above ;-)
>=20
>> the requester has a proponent that currently has voting karma
>=20
> Agreeing with Jordan LeDoux, these seems primed to make current voting =
members a target for wanna-be voters.=20
>=20
> Maybe this could discuss processes that would naturally bring people to=
 want to sponsor someone, such as (maybe?) recommending they first "appre=
ntice" under one or more people by helping document, helping fix bugs, or=
 working with them on an RFC?=20

My main idea was to limit the number of emails to the mailinglist by
requesting them to come from someone already with voting karma so that
there is a slight barrier of entrance. And during the preparation
process for the voting karma someone would hopefully not work in an
empty space but have contacts to other people with voting karma. So that
they can guide the person through the process. And as the process
requires someone to have interacted with the system beforehand that
should not lead to too many wanna-be voters out of the blue
>=20
>> The requester should search a proponent of their case that then propos=
es the request for voting karma to the dedicated discussion medium for su=
ch requests. The proposal should include the reasons why the proponent th=
inks the requester fullfills the above stated requirements.
>=20
> Are you really suggesting that allowing someone new to vote would be he=
ld out in the open, where the discussions about that person will get reco=
rded on externals.io <http://externals.io/> and indexed by Google for all=
 to see, forevermore? =20
>=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 tu=
rned down.=20

Thanks! I actually hadn't thought about that! Any suggestions on how to
improve that?
>=20
>> When there are more approvals than objections the voting karma will be=
 granted.
>=20
> How is voting to be done?  Yay's and nay's on a mailing list?  Or some =
other way? =20

Someone else suggested to have a similar voting widget like we have for
the RFCs as that would ease the whole thing considerably. I'll add that
suggestion to the Draft.
>=20
> And voting right can be approved with 51% whereas most RFCs require 67%=
 to pass?

Only RFCs that change the language need 2/3rd majority. ANd the RFC we
are talking here would need that. But you are right. When the poll is
that close that means there are a lot of objections against that person
(whyever) so we might think about that. On the other hand that would
mean that we might miss valuable input from people that contribute to
the PHP-System...
>=20
> I ask these questions so people who might be interested in getting voti=
ng rights would have an objective roadmap for how to get there otherwise =
it would seem to just be documenting an extremely subjective process.  (W=
hich might be all you are attempting to do?)

I'm trying to create exactly that: An objective roadmap what to do to
get voting rights.

What I did not yet get into is the question what to do when someone did
a lot of effort to get voting rights and right after that stops all effor=
ts.

Perhaps we should add a passage to the RFC regarding that as well.

Thanks though for your input!

Cheers

Andreas

--=20
                                                              ,,,
                                                             (o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl                                                       |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org                  N 50=C2=B022'59.5" E 08=C2=B0=
23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org                                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas                               |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+


--AfoHcxEO4hyv3OK2oxa81vkDzK7RoTJb2--

--kWsjpQJLKdFb7bPAY6VMjBb4RZtfLd1K9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=icTM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--kWsjpQJLKdFb7bPAY6VMjBb4RZtfLd1K9--