Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90605
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
References: <5690BCE6.6010908@gmail.com> <A1.30.14657.27961965@pb1.pair.com>
 <569182FD.6070404@gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nHBVZitqAi=S_TN60Hb9XckncLoc4xe-K27pmxsPRQ7Yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56918458.1070101@gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU4tMsG0fsV2sL-Shc5Q4hTjr13wNLobZj0ASm=fuSXSHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5691D2EA.1050808@gmail.com> <5692307D.5050900@lsces.co.uk>
 <56925977.1040801@dennis.birkholz.biz> <5693C027.4070804@eliw.com>
 <5694D270.3050109@dennis.birkholz.biz> <56950882.7020008@eliw.com>
 <56950BB4.7040400@heigl.org>
 <CA+kxMuSzgpBwsZ0+njia_mpghhcT5sDa-vJJA_W4eDEr5b-fMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56952323.5030201@php.net>
 <CAH-PCH4fe9HzYdYdqhPKhUQNECibrNWAA3AbyRR3L+JER09wrw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56965B9D.5060200@php.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:13:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH4fe9HzYdYdqhPKhUQNECibrNWAA3AbyRR3L+JER09wrw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=)

Le 12/01/2016 20:29, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:00 PM, François Laupretre <francois@php.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Le 12/01/2016 15:52, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :
>>
>>> François Laupretre wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like the process to be amended to disable posting
>>>> opinions/discussions about an RFC while the vote is open,
>>>> considering there was enough time for that during the
>>>> discussion phase.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not a good idea.
>>>
>>> That won't actually make people discuss a proposal during the discussions
>>> phase.
>>>
>>> Instead people will be voting with the conversation about the proposal
>>> not being complete.
>>>
>>> And then we'll be stuck with bad decisions.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it was just a suggestion. What I want to avoid is people jumping in
>> when vote starts and asking for fundamental changes. Each time it happened
>> to me, I had to stop the vote, modify the RFC, and restart the whole
>> process. This also caused a pair of RFC not to be included in PHP 7. Some
>> of them are even abandoned because I am quite tired of such behaviors.
>>
>> I'm OK with the discussion *going on* during the vote but I'm looking for
>> a solution to a real problem.
>>
>
> yeah, that(discussion only seems to happen after introducing the voting
> phase) is frustrating for the rfc author, but that is the last phase where
> complaints can be voiced and most people have a tendency to defer stuff
> until the last minute, that sucks, but not specific to our project, and
> don't know what can we do about it.
> some of those last minute feedback are actually useful, so if we are
> looking for the best solution it i better to have those concerns to be
> raised and heard even if late than ignored and voted on a flawed proposal.
> I think one possible countermeasure can be to start the voting as soon as
> the discussion dies down (while still keeping the minimal discussion
> period) instead of waiting for more feedback arbitrarly and getting
> frustrated that it only comes after one puts the rfc up for votes.
>

What do you think of the opposite solution : merge the discussion and 
voting phases, e.g. allow voting as soon as discussion starts ? This 
discussion/vote phase would be required to last at least 1 month. People 
could either vote early and, maybe, change their vote if the discussion 
makes them think otherwise, or wait for others' arguments. The big 
difference would be that the RFC could be amended during this 
discussion/voting phase. It could be a way to avoid having to restart 
the whole process from the beginning.

Regards

François