Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90623
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain rouvenwessling.de from 80.241.60.215 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH7j13QQQ9hkdC8Cg5UG4UijCob4fsnk6GyYD6V_21+4Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:26:49 +0100
Cc: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>,
 Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>,
 Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1E7F9387-A836-46AC-BA62-E4141DDBB387@rouvenwessling.de>
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> <CAL=_i_nZZQ74BVzy-4+XuPP72_U2ynNRDz5p0yEVNbd3x=ieeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH7j13QQQ9hkdC8Cg5UG4UijCob4fsnk6GyYD6V_21+4Uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline
From: me@rouvenwessling.de (=?utf-8?Q?Rouven_We=C3=9Fling?=)


> On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:23, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.

I don=E2=80=99t have voting rights but I don=E2=80=99t think there is a =
problem with multiple votes in one RFC,
even if they are chained (b only matters if a passes). What doesn't make =
sense is for the voting
right to be restricted based on how one voted (may only vote in b if =
voted for a with option X).=20

Of course most people would make the most restrictive choice in the =
second vote if they were
against the whole RFC, but that would make it an effective reflection on =
how everyone feel.

Best regards
Rouven