Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96983
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADxrgCNuVwCMsns4xFCDw_a02vvwND969zymogcEAxFkfxyBsA@mail.gmail.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> <CADxrgCNuVwCMsns4xFCDw_a02vvwND969zymogcEAxFkfxyBsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:51:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEUnE0djjv2V4h6arAbA=pggXNpSeQA453fcjjSNs3kpKMyLoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d318b7e2b1054187060e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
From: tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris)

--001a1143d318b7e2b1054187060e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Adam Baratz <adambaratz@php.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that simple majority should be
sufficient for any non-binding decision - that is a choice that doesn't
have BC breaks and further doesn't create future BC breaks if the measure
is voted out.

Simple majority should also be sufficient if there is no status quo other
than doing nothing and doing nothing isn't a viable choice.

Ranked choice ballots should be used when there are three or more competing
plans of action as it is better for reaching consensus in those situations.

These rules as well as who has a right to vote need to be more clearly
documented somewhere.

--001a1143d318b7e2b1054187060e--