Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96975 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89988 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2016 18:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Nov 2016 18:55:38 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 90.208.138.117 unknown Received: from [90.208.138.117] ([90.208.138.117:29238] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E3/A2-11917-92DFD285 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:55:38 -0500 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net References: <1ff261d9-129e-3b97-adf1-0e3e2aad280b@gmx.de> <8b980bff-8173-a1a3-bed9-1b3b556be6cd@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:55:34 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8b980bff-8173-a1a3-bed9-1b3b556be6cd@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 90.208.138.117 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi Rowan, Rowan Collins wrote: > On 17/11/2016 18:03, Joe Watkins wrote: >> Afternoon Chrisoph, >> >> The minimum number of votes is going to be the subject of another RFC, >> let's leave that aside for now. > > I'm not sure splitting this into lots of micro-decisions is wise: why > not discuss a general reform of the voting system, and have a single RFC > which can then document the agreed system, and supersede > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting? This might be a good idea, even if we only change the threshold. A potential problem with our current system of policy RFCs is I don't think can we amend existing ones, only pass new ones. This would mean you'd have to refer to the Voting RFC and the new RFC (as proposed by Joe) to understand the current policy, rather than it all being in one place. Worse, if you just read the Voting RFC on its own, you wouldn't know the threshold it specifies is no longer correct. To compare to legal systems for a moment, they don't have to have this problem. In the UK, we have Acts of Parliament, which pass and become part of the law. But those acts can amend existing Acts that are already part of the law, to keep things neat. That makes things simpler, because when you want to know what the current law is, you only have to refer to the existing Act as amended, not the existing Act and a new Act which supplements and possibly overrides it. You can also of course replace existing Acts entirely, or create new supplementary Acts, but you want to avoid this when making small changes like the one Joe proposes. Creating an RFC which would completely replace the Voting RFC would avoid people having to refer to two RFCs, one of which overrides the other. Alternatively, we could decide to do what the law does, and update the Voting RFC in place once a new RFC passes, so the wiki page for it would reflect the amended rules, not the RFC as it originally passed. This is a wiki, so we do have revision control and could mention on the page that it had been amended, and link to the original version. (This is, incidentally, what the UK's legislation website does.) Regards. -- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/