Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96985 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23910 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2016 03:49:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Nov 2016 03:49:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pthreads@pthreads.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pthreads@pthreads.org; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.214.54 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pthreads@pthreads.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.54 mail-it0-f54.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.54] ([209.85.214.54:37956] helo=mail-it0-f54.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 24/00-23317-84A7E285 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:49:28 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f54.google.com with SMTP id j191so11671568ita.1 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:49:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pthreads-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QfDT/b+ChYvubb8wUWoRZF5jVWzdmxCumjyT12V4L/w=; b=PN7W7eLZEywIOEVOR8cP9w7goWbLZiciijxk0a1HvmikHFZ2WKDYxUp5qWAdoF8LuD 4CpAdkkf8u8wT8vSXhIY5oHmFKNcZehiqbGESlC0PgxjinY9CwXHrTZnneFd0AEpM4ww 8MhgS1fJV5MTOAsofGLgMqzsM8xvMrel6KngVjb1ZJ55mQb6yvT1rdguXp2kQt0p3sYH YrvXKTJP7uSBYQCcyrhMX5/UM0Kpc78wUgahePES2U64FfnTW+ZoA4zhF199d3SEaJ+4 y0YGb62d7VO5ic4X2znWxcJ0i9QtgXaQZ1KYXKUENYRo+UCfmAVREKxI6A12EirNR42W nMMQ== 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=QfDT/b+ChYvubb8wUWoRZF5jVWzdmxCumjyT12V4L/w=; b=nOg/bUYuZEQFoTxlg4omN2e0qzLMOS32JIsBRuipESY6v3Xi966sT2MBeCGioOayst b+eD9JadZ9ATSy4VjnezcJP5y6jRLGq/SOAaQK0/JGqAav5ix5KQ2/PzbKV2XMXg/5O+ t1wuqgyiEzcOPMOEKeGmUflrJ/Z2jRQl5t9XCHAAffXuEAtRjPdStpD0l6YW1SR4j3CX ALa9rxLWb7/PzUWp5CAIjv056OZETKug461i3t3nJPDUViHqGXviREiMffnBZ4aqZwhL zWxmddPxjkz6aw35Lm8inZHCoTGyC8rYTlSh7jc1VS6w7ZYPCKDnal0KVfLgbfPrxyQK fGQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvc0nc9bBCQ71/Z3RByXKqbMeebzazh+TBqk11x8vX6rB1I5SGcHiRYiu5RyM3v3+RW8Bx4My5UJtT8XUg== X-Received: by 10.36.28.2 with SMTP id c2mr6543337itc.105.1479440965018; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:49:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.102.3 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:49:24 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [86.168.50.82] In-Reply-To: References: <1ff261d9-129e-3b97-adf1-0e3e2aad280b@gmx.de> <8b980bff-8173-a1a3-bed9-1b3b556be6cd@gmail.com> <34.80.31735.22D1E285@pb1.pair.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 03:49:24 +0000 Message-ID: To: Michael Morris Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114440242fc03305418b3156 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins) --001a114440242fc03305418b3156 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Morning Micheal, In general, we don't have RFC's that have many choices, nor do we for this RFC. We are only choosing between requiring 2/3's all the time, and not requiring 2/3 all the time. While it has been suggested that we raise the bar higher than our current standards raise it, we won't be choosing between those options at vote time, for the reasons I've already given. I would rather coerce contributors into making simple votes with high standards, than allow them to create very complicated voting options, possibly with lower standards. Cheers Joe On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Michael Morris wrote: > The study of voting systems is a hobby of mine and I've encoding vote > gathering algorithms implementing them before, so this gives me a bit of > insight into the discussion at hand that I would like to share. The goal > of any voting system is to reach a consensus, and while majority rule > (regardless of the amount of the majority) is appropriate for most issues= , > it is not appropriate for all. Specifically, it fails to work in any > situation where the group is being asked to reach a consensus on three or > more choices. > > Ironically the choice put forth in this thread is just such an instance. > Stay at 50%+1, Go to 2/3rds, 3/4ths has been mentioned and 3/5ths is > another commonly required ratio. Four choices. > > The best method for dealing with this situation is a ranked choice ballot > and an instant run off vote. The ballot itself asks the voters to rank > their choices, not just stamp a single one. The votes are counted using t= he > expressed first choice on the ballot. If the measure doesn't pass then t= he > option with the fewest supporters is disqualified. The ballots for that > option are recounted and the 2nd choice is added to the counts. If the > measure still doesn't pass this process is repeated, recursively until > there are only two candidate, in which case the one with the majority win= s. > > This method doesn't work directly with methods requiring a plurality othe= r > than a simple majority, but it isn't meant to be applied in the same > situations. > > I'm putting this forward because I worry the group might paint themselves > into a corner by requiring all issues require a super majority, because > that's going to fall apart when there are three or more possibilities. T= he > methods can be combined, using ranked choice to determine which option wi= ll > be put up against the status quo, then a super majority vote to determine > if that option will be chosen over the status quo. > > =E2=80=8B > --001a114440242fc03305418b3156--