Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96995 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 78732 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2016 15:28:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Nov 2016 15:28:12 -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 209.85.214.51 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pthreads@pthreads.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.51 mail-it0-f51.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.51] ([209.85.214.51:37973] helo=mail-it0-f51.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 91/80-10559-70E1F285 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:28:11 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j191so36731692ita.1 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:28:07 -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=9PB4pv/pzEz5Kalxdv2VjPiNB4x8PiAM6sz+faDE6wo=; b=DdUA6zobnyv6iS5uWNsoRBf4M/SmfsO+ugiU0UYVixJyphkZd1LWd5sgmGOOyX1xo5 YNArW7i7pfsgxThYKJfbF39sOBENbLTttPS3PAHrrWX1FOSoPRbPVyGQ9vrUiyXRMD7J iH2buX6A1eV8dBGRx/O4gfTpGWnDvQ5yr/gKmEZrdGBRHhymv38pHgQnDP0jlSBKyB0w bV871zB41eKMBvjx4VbrrqBj5Ti8RAGlWAYYxoTByDA+cQ+a6pegrgjiz0RGVd7T6wnn I/gOEzgZf2kC59o2rjcPKSoGYuVLTVVVDrbgvH+zXyxyyn2kw/p56UNQ7/nqf+wDmJtl oqMQ== 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=9PB4pv/pzEz5Kalxdv2VjPiNB4x8PiAM6sz+faDE6wo=; b=E0lmBmoIodGnpBeCAShDnL27TZZYwuSw92Fjk/znwcKojut7A7rqEWIONcxzkXijG+ 8X/OWwzY5GpMsegQzDev0QD6XaJtki+oDDZLWYjrAGq344vZ7WJTGVxmqOC9yX+P7+sH nhw+2297F4ZRq1V0ddsUPaA3uYPVUFpQ5cpNaNEDyNfNzpHJYid5NtY/953QHvCIT+gJ FBHoDfHojNs63Wxehb+CsWgbhCZGOWlC9i/nsw2ZKyx8EDEIQpVGIA2T7UHXjMpht4Jq iI453uyq+uJI5U5oBskffEJlKN2bm8ftDEit6u0KAgpWU1p1sycqnih/umB1bdgEMNj+ TGLw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03KYZv2f+EYe50fT/uBlw7rflL2gVUaPvs4Z1ij1Lu1Y0fSva2PB+tWb9ZLngFw1cTyoVlyC9/PKJWOiw== X-Received: by 10.107.147.9 with SMTP id v9mr279975iod.110.1479482885313; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:28:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.102.3 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:28:04 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [86.168.50.82] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:28:04 +0000 Message-ID: To: Yasuo Ohgaki Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c056162d4c751054194f3a2 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins) --94eb2c056162d4c751054194f3a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Afternoon Yasuo, Maybe, it is our fault - the person who created the RFC. In an ideal world, during discussion you should collect legitimate unresolved objections, and have those as "no" options on the vote. If when it came to vote time, the options were: Yes No because X No because Y No because Z No I think most people would be happy to provide a reason, if you have it listed. It should be listed, because it should have been brought up during discussion. Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, and you may get lots of no votes still that don't provide a reason. But it doesn't need to be ideal to give us some clue of where to take the RFC next. Many people don't like the idea of requiring a reason, but I'm sure the same people would provide one if it were listed as a voting option. What they don't want is to have to constantly defend their decision after it's been made, which is in some sense reasonable. Cheers Joe On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Joe Watkins > wrote: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins > > Requiring 2/3 majority is reasonable. > > I'll vote yes for this if people who are not in favor disclose the > reason why. Just voting "no" for a RFC is not constructive. Improving > a RFC is difficult without reason why it is not preferred. Decision > could be based on wrong assumption and/or misunderstanding sometimes. > > Could we have comment plugin for this? It does not have be to a > comment plugin, if there is better plugin for the purpose. > > Regards, > > -- > Yasuo Ohgaki > yohgaki@ohgaki.net > --94eb2c056162d4c751054194f3a2--