Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128204
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:13:53 +0200
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs
In-Reply-To: <7afc0ac1-3446-459a-a67a-e616afe750f6@app.fastmail.com>
References: <b0d97beef95862524b329922522bbefe@bastelstu.be>
 <7afc0ac1-3446-459a-a67a-e616afe750f6@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <da61c5e98ab460211d4e54d7903b2e25@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2025-07-23 16:05, schrieb Larry Garfield:
> The only thing I'd add is that in the case of multi-option secondary 
> votes, STV/RCV also be explicitly allowed.  (Rank first, second, third, 
> etc.).  (I'm aware the mechanism for STV is kinda clunky on the wiki 
> right now, but we know how to make it work.)  Perhaps even encouraged 
> if "do nothing" is not one of the options.

I meant to allow any alternative forms of “majority” with the:

> The interpretation of the result of a secondary vote, necessary 
> threshold(s), and tie-breakers MUST be defined at the start of the 
> voting period.

rule, but it certainly makes sense to spell this out explicitly. I've 
opted to only allow STV, because that's what is established in the 
project, so participants already know how it works.

Find the changes in the following commit: 
https://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/0d8eaf048f9a998bcc7bf6a8c696ba5452a255ae

> An example of both up/down and either/or secondary votes would also be 
> helpful.

I have added an example for a plurality vote in 
https://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/de94b7a132c4a74e54e7848914203f1849231697. 
I am having trouble with phrasing an example for a non-plurality vote 
that doesn't get complicated. If you have a suggestion, I'm happy to add 
it. But a secondary vote with a 2/3 majority should already be known 
from a primary vote and it's always necessary to clearly specify how the 
results of secondary votes are interpreted for an individual vote.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus