Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84513 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28498 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2015 18:23:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Mar 2015 18:23:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=marcio.web2@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=marcio.web2@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: marcio.web2@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.51 mail-la0-f51.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.51] ([209.85.215.51:34597] helo=mail-la0-f51.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0B/28-08808-0963FF45 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:23:13 -0500 Received: by labgq15 with SMTP id gq15so3703760lab.1 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:23:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=5JG/wcHkvzjZLICETBzY0omjj5MweTByXD9Ewpvu1rQ=; b=x3r+8kRKLWwruuqDRTt9yRGAyF42oaQ6wwCtRH1CH4xfQDZbTcKzmd1NwIoYrAzoWw 4nblEOaRHbWe3OSptbbagwfrJ1dsUew4OA8UzqMiIWAC9JvC2DE9oOU3DV+V94E//2S0 PQeMLy6G/NLA1wyNXLxDyGPVnEhTHxw9CwtivzmNHAD6OHzeySUIaLBWiWAUzvv4UY9W FWtvpQFHZReZjMY1VjuUWUFqzr8n9T5RwobS1u517DysShKeeM/6iCM3tjbjU/e4mXia q+Csv09R6BqfR59SgPtEWdvfuSnCimWk+SVkl8NsfXf9TyMa3+JsKvNCFvJfzOLId0ZE QW8Q== X-Received: by 10.152.181.197 with SMTP id dy5mr31796208lac.57.1426011789856; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.118.169 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: marcio3w@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:22:49 -0300 Message-ID: To: Dan Ackroyd Cc: Anthony Ferrara , Patrick ALLAERT , Yasuo Ohgaki , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113434722e15880510f33e58 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting choice for language changes (Was: "Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count") From: marcio.web2@gmail.com (Marcio Almada) --001a113434722e15880510f33e58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, 2015-03-10 12:45 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd : > On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > > > Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no? > > It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility > > of gaming. > > > While I generally agree, in the case where there is a small detail > that needs to be addresses by a vote, I think having two votes in one > RFC is better than having two almost identical RFCs. > > However the question that is being voted on needs to be setup properly > so that it does not prevent people from being able to vote on both > issues. > > For example the group use RFC > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations) has a small detail > of whether there should be a trailing slash in the syntax, which did > not deserve a separate RFC imo. > > Unfortunately, the vote options were: > - Yes - with a trailing "\" > - Yes - without a trailing "\" > - No > > This meant it was impossible for people who wanted to vote no to the > general idea, to say what was their preferred choice of syntax. The > questions and voting choices should have been: > > "Should Grouped Use Declarations be added to PHP 7" > - Yes > - No > > "If added, should the syntax be with trailing "\" or without." > - With a trailing "\" > - Without a trailing "\" > > This would have allowed all voters to express their intent for both > parts of the question, without being forced to vote 'yes' if they want > a say in the exact syntax used. > > cheers > Dan > Ack > That's so true. The Group Use... was my first RFC and I have to admit this voting setup was poor decision taking on my part, sorry. Later some people even confessed that they didn't vote "yes" because they haven't noticed it was necessary when in reality they just couldn't realize they should sum the "yes" votes to know if the RFC was passing or not. I'll avoid to setup a vote like this again and will always prefer the multiple questions approach in situations where options are inevitable. Thanks, M=C3=A1rcio --001a113434722e15880510f33e58--