Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74325
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSxunKrFs3vO28fNs93KdWfhoG3V88kVmwt8vBus0Gw1vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A3E9D7E0-5C10-48AD-B141-F3D72B74A235@ajf.me> <CAKOpQSxunKrFs3vO28fNs93KdWfhoG3V88kVmwt8vBus0Gw1vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 01:02:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFp73XtiO5Sz7TdYOZS1CoJm787Tsw_rXwbD_fr0ZZYscNs=aA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d5b0a9e623404f9a58ddb
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to increase the required majority for all RFCs
From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com")

--047d7b5d5b0a9e623404f9a58ddb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My vote is for 66%+1 on engine and/or language changes and 50%+1 on side
changes.
If I want to suggest a Jsonable interface which purely affects a subset of
functions and nothing else, I don't think 66% is needed for change to go in=
.

My 2=C2=A2,


On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> > Good evening,
> >
> > Given the recent controversy on the 64-bit patch vote, and after some
> > discussions on IRC[0] with some others, I think we should amend the
> current
> > voting rules[1].
> >
>
> I agree that they need to be amended, but....
>
>
> >
> > Currently only 50%+1, a simple majority, is required to pass
> =E2=80=98non-language
> > changes=E2=80=99. However, I feel that this is too small of a hurdle to=
 pass.
> Under
> > this rule, contentious changes can pass despite a very thin majority. T=
he
> > rationale seems to be that non-language changes have less broad effect
> and
> > hence don=E2=80=99t need wide approval. However, changes which don=E2=
=80=99t affect the
> > =E2=80=98language=E2=80=99 can still have wide-ranging effect and be ve=
ry problematic. It
> > is also a quite vague requirement, as it is not always clear what chang=
e
> > affects the =E2=80=98language=E2=80=99 and what doesn=E2=80=99t.
> >
> > Hence, I propose that we require a supermajority of 2/3 to pass RFC
> votes.
> > This system is currently used for =E2=80=98language=E2=80=99 votes, but=
 I feel it ought
> to
> > extend to everything. This a much bigger hurdle to climb over than only=
 a
> > simple majority, but it means that only changes with broad consensus ar=
e
> > likely to pass. It also means that the results of a vote will be less
> > contentious, as there need to be at least twice as many votes in favour
> > than against for it to pass. Finally, this change would mean there woul=
d
> be
> > no interpretation issues as to what constitutes a language change, as a=
ll
> > changes must meet the same bar.
> >
> > To those who say this might impede progress, I would like to point out
> > that every single RFC accepted for PHP 5.6 so far was accepted by more
> than
> > a 2/3 majority, and so would not have been stopped by this hurdle. Also=
,
> > I=E2=80=99m not sure it is fair if =E2=80=98progress=E2=80=99 happens w=
hen there is not broad
> > consensus on an issue.
> >
>
> Requiring a supermajority for every single change wouldn't impede routine
> progress, but it would impede meaningful progress.  Why?  Because it woul=
d
> essentially prevent us from making a collective decision on any contentio=
us
> issue.
>
> Just look at the United States Senate.  They can't get anything done
> because a 60% supermajority is required on just about everything now that
> the filibuster has become routine.  It's frustrating when 59% votes in
> favor of a routine funding bill and it still fails.  What you're talking
> about would be an even greater hurdle, 2/3.  Now I will concede that,
> thankfully, we tend to get along better than members of the U.S. Senate,
> but we're still human and we're still going to have heated disagreements =
on
> issues that need to be addressed.  If we start having RFCs failing with 6=
5%
> in favor of passage, that would have a paralyzing effect and we'd risk
> falling into the same trap that befell the Senate.
>
> They weren't always this dysfunctional.  It used to be that 60% was only
> required for major things with wider implications.  Stuff actually got do=
ne
> back then.  Just like stuff gets done now in PHP.  If we go to a 2/3-only
> model, we'll make it impossible to make any collective executive decision=
s
> on controversial matters.  It's arbitrary (why 2/3 and not 60% or 55%?),
> ignores the will of the majority, and is simply not sustainable.
>
> A much better solution would be to amend the voting RFC to provide more
> clarity as to when 2/3 is required and when it's not.  The current langua=
ge
> is too vague and open to interpretation.
>
> --Kris
>



--=20
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

--047d7b5d5b0a9e623404f9a58ddb--