Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90610
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.173 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB2988A3093E76D1E675BFD74ACCA0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:12:13 -0600
Cc: John Bafford <jbafford@zort.net>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <3CB02F5A-A02F-4976-9B62-07AECA75372A@gmail.com>
References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net> <56948002.1080802@gmail.com> <A51E3740-45AD-4522-AFB6-74698066DB95@zort.net> <BY2PR02MB2988A3093E76D1E675BFD74ACCA0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct)
From: pmjones88@gmail.com ("Paul M. Jones")

Hi all,

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 17:07, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>=20
> Out of 45 approved RFC, 34 would have cleared a 90% bar, 35 would have =
cleared an 85% bar, and 38 would have cleared a 75% bar.
>=20
> To the best of my recollection, all of the RFCs that generated major =
storms fall in the these 7 RFCs that cleared the 67% mark, but failed =
the 75% mark.
>=20
> Very importantly, out of the RFCs that cleared 85% and 90% - none had =
more than 5 people opposing, most had 0, and most of the rest had less =
than 3.
>=20
> It's also worth noting that once you clear the 75% mark, you're very =
likely to also clear 85% and 90%.  Only 3 RFCs cleared 75% and didn't =
clear 90%.
>=20
> What I'm getting at is this:
>=20
> Most passed RFCs are manage to gain something that's very close to =
consensus, way higher than 2/3, with barely a handful of people =
opposing.
>=20
> If the vote is close to 2/3 - there are very high chances that the RFC =
is controversial, that people who oppose it will be opposing it =
passionately, and that as civilized as we try to be - bad vibes are =
likely to ensue.

This is a very interesting analysis, and I find it appealing.

An alternative interpretation might be: "As people feel an RFC is near =
the pass/fail point, they argue it more vociferously." That's more ... =
dynamic? ... interpretation, in that it doesn't matter where the =
pass/fail point is (2/3, 3/4, etc); conversational volume increases =
around that point wherever it is. When the perceived support is much =
higher, or much lower, than the pass/fail point, the conversational =
volume decreases.

That's an untested hypothesis, of course. If it's true, though, it means =
that raising the bar to 4/5 means conversational volume will increase =
only for RFCs that already have very high support, which is probably not =
the intended consequence of raising the bar.


--=20
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php