Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90612
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601131449191.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <373698cabe053cb9bec8e1f6dc969906@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR02MB298CD3F862A71149FB29857ACCB0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAL=_i_mR9ue7W_=zZX19Zm3XY1kPaJfoho2U3ZdExNPXWQwN8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP1486256AA36AFDB5A00EDABE2CB0@phx.gbl>
	<BY2PR02MB29887B1092A73C5458ACE0FACCB0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1601131449191.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:23:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH4ycEP35z-XgtTz-J-vZ19p5E5NdQt+gqxumNtk1zabnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf1987c17dd41052938c040
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--047d7bf1987c17dd41052938c040
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobwei9@hotmail.com]
> > >
> > > no votes should be meaning  "I want as less as possible support".
> > > Counting it that way would make it up for a tie and us choosing the
> most
> > > restrictive schedule as a result.
> > > (Interpreting it like "you need 50%+1 of the total to get it extended
> so far".)
> > >
> > > Hence Security Support until Dec 31 2017.
> >
> > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented
> ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and
> very clearly so:
> > "In case the majority chooses to extend the lifetime of PHP 5.6 (>50%) =
-
> then the option garnering more votes between the two proposed timelines
> would win."
> >
> > I'm not sure what the situation would have been had we truly had a 23/2=
3
> split, probably a revote or an extended voting period, but the current
> situation is very well defined under the RFC terms.
>
> Not that I particularly care about this outcome, but there were only
> "42" Yes votes, and "2" No votes. As the voting says for the second part
> "ONLY IF YOU CHOSE 'YES' ABOVE: ", there should only be 42 votes in the
> second part, and not 44 like there are now (21+23)... so there is
> something wonky.
>
>
"There were two voters who didn't vote "yes" for the first poll who voted o=
n
the second poll, but as they chose different options the conclusion doesn't
change."


> I would recommend, not to do split votes like this anymore. It's just
> too confusing IMO.


I don't think we can avoid some confusion, we could have had a three way
vote here (keep the current, expand #1, expand #2) but then people would
argue that the tho expand options should win in sum or one of those
separately. We could have delayed the second vote after the first one, but
then it could be argued that somebody would have voted differently if they
knew the options for the second vote (or even the progress of the votes)
beforehand. Or Zeev could have picked one of the two dates, and seeing the
results it is entirely possible that the vote would have failed regardless
of the date picked (assuming that the No voters would have voted no
anyways, and some of the yes voters would have voted no because of their
disagreement with the proposed date) which seems to be a bad outcome seeing
how the yes-no vote went to 42:2.
So I don't think we had a objectively better alternative or how could
always have the best outcome with a simple vote of two options.



--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--047d7bf1987c17dd41052938c040--