Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96976
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.214.43 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E3.A2.11917.92DFD285@pb1.pair.com>
References: <CAL=_i_m79Q3MuvvuhNcxiXF-ARJOW22eGJSoYMZBct6d_xxY3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ff261d9-129e-3b97-adf1-0e3e2aad280b@gmx.de> <CAL=_i_k1eJkW0EdRisrj=Lz5geFEk_8ervEN2g5qHtKDM2f0bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8b980bff-8173-a1a3-bed9-1b3b556be6cd@gmail.com> <E3.A2.11917.92DFD285@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:04:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_=EXxnS11S6u-i+4xHRcxbkfZO8fJDh1UKVOs3JPehq7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0561628495eb054183db73
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--94eb2c0561628495eb054183db73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Afternoon Andrea,

Intention was to just update the voting page, and any other related docs
that might exist (maybe rfc template).

Cheers
Joe

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--94eb2c0561628495eb054183db73--