Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128211
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:42:02 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <c7ddb907-0e7c-4abe-90f9-e28f6cfbaefc@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <da61c5e98ab460211d4e54d7903b2e25@bastelstu.be>
References: <b0d97beef95862524b329922522bbefe@bastelstu.be>
 <7afc0ac1-3446-459a-a67a-e616afe750f6@app.fastmail.com>
 <da61c5e98ab460211d4e54d7903b2e25@bastelstu.be>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, at 4:13 AM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> 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=20
>> votes, STV/RCV also be explicitly allowed.  (Rank first, second, thir=
d,=20
>> etc.).  (I'm aware the mechanism for STV is kinda clunky on the wiki=20
>> right now, but we know how to make it work.)  Perhaps even encouraged=20
>> if "do nothing" is not one of the options.
>
> I meant to allow any alternative forms of =E2=80=9Cmajority=E2=80=9D w=
ith the:
>
>> The interpretation of the result of a secondary vote, necessary=20
>> threshold(s), and tie-breakers MUST be defined at the start of the=20
>> voting period.
>
> rule, but it certainly makes sense to spell this out explicitly. I've=20
> opted to only allow STV, because that's what is established in the=20
> project, so participants already know how it works.

Just to clarify here, Single Transferable Vote and Ranked Choice Voting =
are the same thing.  I think it's just another Ameircan-vs-British Engli=
sh question. :-)

> Find the changes in the following commit:=20
> https://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/0d8eaf048f9a998bcc7bf6a8c6=
96ba5452a255ae

:thumbs up emoji:

>> An example of both up/down and either/or secondary votes would also b=
e=20
>> helpful.
>
> I have added an example for a plurality vote in=20
> https://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/de94b7a132c4a74e54e7848914=
203f1849231697.=20
> I am having trouble with phrasing an example for a non-plurality vote=20
> that doesn't get complicated. If you have a suggestion, I'm happy to=20
> add=20
> it. But a secondary vote with a 2/3 majority should already be known=20
> from a primary vote and it's always necessary to clearly specify how=20
> the=20
> results of secondary votes are interpreted for an individual vote.
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

How about this, as a following paragraph:

As an STV example, a secondary vote using STV and having 5 "Foo", 4 "Bar=
", 8 "Baz", and 9 "Abstain" first-choice votes has no majority, so will =
go to a second round.  "Bar" will be eliminated and those votes redistri=
buted to second-choice options.  If for example the second round result =
is 6 "Foo", 9 "Baz", and 11 "Abstain", then Baz will have won as it has =
a clear majority of non-Abstain votes cast.

--Larry Garfield