Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79224
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <547718B1.4060504@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:27:29 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <D7C8CEF6-625E-4489-8EFC-8FCAA16302D2@ajf.me> <7976C8E7-CA1A-4816-84A1-33942880D0A5@ajf.me> <4F86A182-679D-4E52-B7BA-F53ACDDB962C@gmail.com> <5476786E.5060403@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5476786E.5060403@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Safe Casting Functions
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Stanislav Malyshev wrote on 27/11/2014 01:03:
> Hi!
>
>> 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
> You could register that fact by not voting. Why there should be a record
> that particular person has no idea what to vote for?

There's a difference between "has no idea", which implies ignorance, and 
"has no strong opinion", which implies ambivalence. Registering an 
abstention means "I have read and understood this proposal, but I do not 
feel strongly enough to support any of the voting options presented". 
Like any vote, that could be followed up by an e-mail explaining the 
reasoning behind it.

It might not suit our circumstance, but distinguishing between "didn't 
vote" and "registered an abstention" is quite common in the world at 
large. Interestingly, the UK parliament doesn't have a mechanism for it, 
so MPs will sometimes walk across the House to get themselves listed as 
voting both for and against a motion in order to indicate it.


>> 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.
> If there are people too busy to vote but interested in the topic, then
> they could ask to extend the vote or postpone if - if there are enough
> such people, I do not see why anybody would deny such request. If people
> are too busy to even communicate - then I'm not sure what there is to be
> done about it. I'm not sure how "quorum" would help - say, there is no
> "quorum" - so what we do? Just not vote until... what happens? Hold
> indefinitely long votes? Repeat votes until arbitrary threshold is
> passed and then argue if that was "accidental" or "gamed" or anything
> else? I'm not sure it would be better than holding a straight vote.

Yes, I think a strict numeric quorum requirement is probably overkill 
for this situation, I just thought I'd mention it. It works well with a 
committee or parliament where turnout is expected to be close to 100%, 
because passing on 50% of a 50% turnout is clearly problematic.

But in our case, I'm not even sure what the total number of people who 
could vote is, but I suspect there are many who almost never do, making 
any hard limit rather arbitrary.

To be clear, I think abstentions still make sense without a quorum 
requirement (just not vice versa).

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]