Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90621
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.27 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
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>
 <56965B9D.5060200@php.net>
Message-ID: <56967AC5.8050708@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:26:45 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56965B9D.5060200@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

On 1/13/16 8:13 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
>
>> 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

Voting should never, ever be on something that's still in flux. Voting 
should be on a fixed, unmodified text so you know what you're voting 
on.  Otherwise, something you're in favor of in its initial form may 
drift to be something else entirely that you don't like by the time the 
vote period ends, but since you already voted you're not paying close 
attention anymore.

Which is the other problem: Once someone votes, they'll wander off. They 
won't wait to see the discussion, see if anyone has good points to raise 
(pro or con), wait to see if the text changes in a way that would change 
their vote (pro or con), or whatever else.  Knee-jerk votes are 
generally uninformed votes, which is the last thing we want.

-- 
--Larry Garfield