Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81138 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13855 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2015 18:26:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jan 2015 18:26:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@tekwire.net; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@tekwire.net; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain tekwire.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@tekwire.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:58001] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 74/03-31595-D4535C45 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:26:22 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CC64B0218; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:23:31 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Dan Ackroyd'" , "'Peter Cowburn'" Cc: "'Paul Dragoonis'" , "'Stanislav Malyshev'" , "'PHP Internals'" References: <54C4A44F.2030902@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:26:17 +0100 Message-ID: <006c01d038cc$6907d830$3b178890$@tekwire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGkpnZrBYzVqXKLngpTspwf5Hty4QFZ+1e3Ab6k/dIB1GQGk50A3QkA Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150125-0, 25/01/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Vote results for default ctors RFC From: francois@tekwire.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) > De : Dan Ackroyd [mailto:danack@basereality.com] > > However I think there is a strong risk of people having to give a > reason why they voted no being abused, particularly if it is shown > while the voting was taking place, as people could be harassed for > choosing an 'invalid' reason to reject the RFC. Some suggestions for a future hypothetical RFC software : - Individual votes are kept secret. Just make public the number of = voters and overall result. Each voter sees its own vote. - Vote starts with RFC discussion. - A voter can modify its vote until vote closes. - Votes span a range from '-2' (completely disagree) to '+2' (fully = agree). - A minimal number of voters (quorum) is required for an RFC to be = approved. - and, most important, comments are stored with the RFC, and mirrored to = the mailing list. Please comment. Even if we don't have it today, maybe we can agree on an = objective for tomorrow. I was looking for such a software, as I thought such needs are very = common among open source projects, but I didn't find anything = convincing. The best solution I imagine would be github adding an = optional voting feature to issues (would we need to restrict access to = vote or would we accept anybody with a github account ?). Github issues = already have almost everything we need, except voting. Cheers Fran=C3=A7ois