Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79208
Return-Path: <ameaijou@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 44002 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2014 00:36:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 27 Nov 2014 00:36:32 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ameaijou@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=gwynne@darkrainfall.org; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ameaijou@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.176 mail-ob0-f176.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.214.176] ([209.85.214.176:39878] helo=mail-ob0-f176.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 93/70-40216-F0276745 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:36:32 -0500
Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id vb8so3025575obc.21
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:36:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
        bh=h22rK6I8zOxWVKUB83i/DcqLLLj/7n396PJWu+VpWJA=;
        b=CpIJVL43c0E8W7nS7ZgnNJGgwLsQ55D/jWAwCakPrTpJ5iVFA4Ay1O/OEMkWMsq7lG
         oXr3ZCW+0pu0b5L/G091GYi2DG/T51TWWIbk6NOQMkLddu09tO2ymDMPpHBOINuEVyd4
         AoS93F0TjERS7+vNkNMQAEaV9VBkYSpBUCm4isH2rwCDA+T0Tjy9+ItrMHg/0PXXzW+i
         ANWGJ7n27G3ZsejUV9imxvKmR9FdH5jP5zNGuconA+ZSbEtalwld9gh3S5HXzxIj0pVa
         TREgGDh0j8IGJrBmL6uoLoa/gpEGVX9h02NaCNTzzv6mIo4DNOuAvtrA+v6CNWR5bCJl
         5f3Q==
X-Received: by 10.60.112.72 with SMTP id io8mr12465842oeb.67.1417048589380;
        Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.3] (cpe-72-179-28-18.austin.res.rr.com. [72.179.28.18])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e1sm2512902obn.11.2014.11.26.16.36.28
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:36:28 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <83ECD95B-D992-484F-8A20-DB229D9DBCB2@ajf.me>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:36:27 -0600
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <67348FE0-AFE7-4426-A537-A03AEF4738AB@darkrainfall.org>
References: <D7C8CEF6-625E-4489-8EFC-8FCAA16302D2@ajf.me> <7976C8E7-CA1A-4816-84A1-33942880D0A5@ajf.me> <4F86A182-679D-4E52-B7BA-F53ACDDB962C@gmail.com> <83ECD95B-D992-484F-8A20-DB229D9DBCB2@ajf.me>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Safe Casting Functions
From: gwynne@darkrainfall.org (Gwynne Raskind)

On Nov 26, 2014, at 17:24, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>> On 26 Nov 2014, at 23:00, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>> So far only 15 people have voted, that=92s very low for this kind of =
RFC.
>>>=20
>>> I=92m tempted to extend voting for another week. It=92s not likely =
to
>>> change the outcome, but it would hopefully mean more people vote.
>> I don't know if it would make a difference here, but I wonder if it =
would be sensible to add an "abstain" option in votes? That way, someone =
who has considered an RFC but not formed a strong opinion either way =
could register that fact. This could even be paired with the notion of a =
"quorum", i.e. a minimum vote count demonstrating that the outcome of =
the vote is not the accidental result of "missing" votes, say because =
several people happened to be on holiday or busy.
> That sounds like a very good idea to me, I, for one, would be happy if =
this was implemented.

A very strong +1 here. It would also give a stronger sense of how many =
people are actually looking at voting on RFCs in general. I would =
certainly have felt better casting abstain on several RFCs that=92ve =
recently gone by than with the vote I actually cast (though I stand by =
my votes in all cases regardless), usually because of lack of strong =
knowledge of the subject matter.

-- Gwynne Raskind