Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96982 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9445 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2016 22:33:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Nov 2016 22:33:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=adambaratz@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=adam.baratz@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.41 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: adam.baratz@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.41 mail-vk0-f41.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.41] ([209.85.213.41:36226] helo=mail-vk0-f41.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E5/50-07771-1503E285 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:33:54 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id p9so154399583vkd.3 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:33:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=y9bKRrc3RiAaJx69lN0lRqQlPmZ/1feTBfkdg2fClL0=; b=iD4rIiqBy9gQuqD349kFSvHOAk0OPSPDI5KlA23ujwQNipsaMxhMJAfvK4x8YVBcHL EwRxBNMiLGwTGkuLZW3ucAXqZr8dOIedbfZdnTLSJ5P78LXJ1z9bqLH3eP35Vk3RNNfj 8Ghs4s78waKioPkJjWA40IZ/48EsQ05N3Q9VKRQF5I0AGylSDg2RyzLhSgYfdzXATYcc DV60m1j7s2NClODGMBtZ90w/7KD6DPkqCHkIl9eYoJEBJ/KO0J87O+r/4l3LEMWkQk7s 4DmGCKY26pJK1W7YCbHVLDHUtfEEpshjYhNfYtMMjtRaAqQOhOef5cJuJMaFx3wyB0rM jukg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03NZC588kO/vH4MKbqLfaR4BZFlLAXa47F0/jeqYyGqvkn8Tj13LvJ9cE5YopcdjA== X-Received: by 10.31.48.77 with SMTP id w74mr3492829vkw.69.1479422030248; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua0-f173.google.com (mail-ua0-f173.google.com. [209.85.217.173]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w70sm1141646vke.21.2016.11.17.14.33.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b35so155796260uaa.3 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:33:49 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.176.83.57 with SMTP id x54mr2998434uax.141.1479422029802; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:33:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.137.65 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:33:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8b980bff-8173-a1a3-bed9-1b3b556be6cd@gmail.com> References: <1ff261d9-129e-3b97-adf1-0e3e2aad280b@gmx.de> <8b980bff-8173-a1a3-bed9-1b3b556be6cd@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:33:49 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Rowan Collins Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c191efe8f3b1e054186c859 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: adambaratz@php.net (Adam Baratz) --94eb2c191efe8f3b1e054186c859 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 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? > I agree with this. We could end up with a different system if we look at this holistically. Also, I'm not sure what the urgency in making this change is. I'd rather be thoughtful about a substantive change like this. It might help to articulate the goals of the voting system. I agree with the gut feel that 50%+1 is a weak test, but that really depends on what's being tested. If we can articulate goals in the RFC, that will also help inform how the community approaches writing RFCs. I have some concerns that a very high bar will make it difficult to change extensions if their users aren't well-represented here. Thanks, Adam --94eb2c191efe8f3b1e054186c859--