Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65233
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com does not designate 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
References: <76a9565b2a095a72063a68f106a6b457@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5=_=FP6wRQjyot0qhAZ0+hrhjdARCjNpcvv4Ne8R8KgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5ed6711b24349c82b7c17dd450ff7c80@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU57p+snxR=LK3j4uSKPMvfU99R68gRRqQsna1MNuadojA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU57p+snxR=LK3j4uSKPMvfU99R68gRRqQsna1MNuadojA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQItj407fvbyyHusXdfq7WqB3TBWzwH/50DcAYH7XhQC750pEZdr5U5w
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:19:44 +0200
Message-ID: <7165e8331e1070234771f7ae9573cdf8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:07 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
>
> hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> >> > My suggestion is for voting periods to be limited to one week,
> >> > regardless of the topic.  It should be more than enough.
> >> > Regardless,
> > an 'open
> >> ended'
> >> > voting period is unacceptable IMHO.
> >>
> >> You were one of the person who requested to have at least two weeks,
> >> so nobody can miss a vote due to various reasons (on the road, off
> >> time, or whatever else). I'd to keep two weeks.
> >
> > Well the way it is right now it's a 'one week by default', unless
> > there are reasons to extend it, which IIRC was the compromise.  I find
> > it difficult to believe that had this particular RFC been in an
'accepted'
> > position back on Wednesday the 23rd, the vote wouldn't have
> > immediately closed...
>
> I find somehow disturbing that you raised that for the RFC you don't
like, that
> has to be said :)

That's fair, but it's the only one of 6 open RFCs right now that has an
intentional open-ended ending date.

> You also, if I am not mistaken, changed your vote during the
> week.

I was never in favor of this feature, in all of its different
incarnations.  I did not change my vote.

> That's all good, but changing rules to get the results we wish is not
going
> to happen.

I feel that this is what was done in this particular case, not the other
way around.  That what brought me to bring up that subject here in the
first place.  This particular RFC was the only RFC where I noticed this
weird 'no sooner than' language, and it seemed intentional to me - given
the fact it's a very controversial feature opposed by most core devs.

If we want to change the default voting period to two weeks, that's fine -
but IMHO it should be for future RFCs after it gets approved.

> > In my opinion - based on our actual experience now as opposed to
> > theoretical predictions which we had back then - one week should be
> > enough as the default.  But I'm fine going with two weeks.  I guess
> > we'll vote on that too :)  It's more important to have a definite end
> > date than whether it's one week or two weeks.
>
> One week is too short, I'd to go with two weeks minumum, end date must
be set
> when a vote begins, to avoid any confusions.
>
> I will add a vote on that in the voting RFC, as un update, so we will a
clear(er)
> position for the next RFCs.

OK, please put a one week as an option too.  To put things in perspective,
elections that effect the fate of billions of people typically end in
24hrs.

Zeev