Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128246
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b0d97beef95862524b329922522bbefe@bastelstu.be>
 <7afc0ac1-3446-459a-a67a-e616afe750f6@app.fastmail.com> <da61c5e98ab460211d4e54d7903b2e25@bastelstu.be>
 <c7ddb907-0e7c-4abe-90f9-e28f6cfbaefc@app.fastmail.com> <cf8d6772-bff6-41a8-855e-e89edaf18b25@bastelstu.be>
 <500A1C30-B9C1-44C0-9779-F872DD573490@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <500A1C30-B9C1-44C0-9779-F872DD573490@php.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:38:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKcc2m-jZbht-NKoRsiuQfF-KqhjV5LWgYYhVY6EnJLgm6GRmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>, 
	Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000634c55063af938ff"
From: kguest@php.net (Ken Guest)

--000000000000634c55063af938ff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

People can just abstain by not voting anyway - I really don't see what
adding this would give us.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 at 14:45, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> On 27 July 2025 14:09:50 BST, "Tim D=C3=BCsterhus" <tim@bastelstu.be> wro=
te:
> >Hi
> >
> >On 7/24/25 15:42, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >> Just to clarify here, Single Transferable Vote and Ranked Choice Votin=
g
> are the same thing.  I think it's just another Ameircan-vs-British Englis=
h
> question. :-)
> >
> >My understanding is that =E2=80=9CRanked Choice Voting=E2=80=9D is a gen=
eric term of
> which =E2=80=9CSingle Transferable Vote=E2=80=9D is a specific implementa=
tion. I
> specifically do not want to allow any other implementations than the one
> the PHP project is already comfortable with using.
>
> That's my understanding too, and I also agree we shouldn't make it more
> complicated.
>
> >> 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 wi=
ll
> go to a second round.  "Bar" will be eliminated and those votes
> redistributed 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 i=
t
> has a clear majority of non-Abstain votes cast.
> >
> >That is quite verbose and requires two assumptions to be made, making it
> hard to follow when not already knowing how STV works. I think it will
> confuse more than it helps.
>
> Please don't add abstention to STV votes. If you select fewer options tha=
n
> you can, that is already an abstention.
>
> STV is really only used for secondaries (and release managers) anyway, so
> I would rather see this not get more complicated.
>
> cheers
> Derick
>


--=20
http://about.me/kenguest/

--000000000000634c55063af938ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">People can just abstain by not voting anyway - I really do=
n&#39;t see what adding this would give us.</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, 27=
 Jul 2025 at 14:45, Derick Rethans &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:derick@php.net">de=
rick@php.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex">On 27 July 2025 14:09:50 BST, &quot;Tim D=C3=BCsterhus&quot; &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:tim@bastelstu.be" target=3D"_blank">tim@bastelstu.be</a=
>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;Hi<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;On 7/24/25 15:42, Larry Garfield wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; Just to clarify here, Single Transferable Vote and Ranked Choice V=
oting are the same thing.=C2=A0 I think it&#39;s just another Ameircan-vs-B=
ritish English question. :-)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;My understanding is that =E2=80=9CRanked Choice Voting=E2=80=9D is a ge=
neric term of which =E2=80=9CSingle Transferable Vote=E2=80=9D is a specifi=
c implementation. I specifically do not want to allow any other implementat=
ions than the one the PHP project is already comfortable with using.<br>
<br>
That&#39;s my understanding too, and I also agree we shouldn&#39;t make it =
more complicated. <br>
<br>
&gt;&gt; How about this, as a following paragraph:<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; As an STV example, a secondary vote using STV and having 5 &quot;F=
oo&quot;, 4 &quot;Bar&quot;, 8 &quot;Baz&quot;, and 9 &quot;Abstain&quot; f=
irst-choice votes has no majority, so will go to a second round.=C2=A0 &quo=
t;Bar&quot; will be eliminated and those votes redistributed to second-choi=
ce options.=C2=A0 If for example the second round result is 6 &quot;Foo&quo=
t;, 9 &quot;Baz&quot;, and 11 &quot;Abstain&quot;, then Baz will have won a=
s it has a clear majority of non-Abstain votes cast.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;That is quite verbose and requires two assumptions to be made, making i=
t hard to follow when not already knowing how STV works. I think it will co=
nfuse more than it helps.<br>
<br>
Please don&#39;t add abstention to STV votes. If you select fewer options t=
han you can, that is already an abstention. <br>
<br>
STV is really only used for secondaries (and release managers) anyway, so I=
 would rather see this not get more complicated. <br>
<br>
cheers <br>
Derick <br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear=3D"all"></div><br><span class=3D"gmail_si=
gnature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><a href=3D"http://about.me/kenguest/" target=3D"_blank">http=
://about.me/kenguest/</a></div></div>

--000000000000634c55063af938ff--